What is government transparency? It is an English word, so one place to look is the Cambridge English Dictionary, where it is defined as “The quality of being done in the open without any secrets.”
It is probable that no one reading this has ever encountered an elected official who said he or she is against transparency. Everyone is for it. Everyone says they practice it. And if you want to see an Oscar-winning scene of outrage and self-pity, accuse one of these officials of purposefully hiding what they are doing from the public.
So if everyone is for it, why is it so hard to find? Why the strong resistance to the simplest and most straightforward suggestions from the public for ways to increase what we all say we want? Could it be that this commitment to transparency is a charade? Worse, is it the calculated manipulation of the public in order to continue to engage in the time-honored process of private backroom politics?
Let’s focus on one example of transparency – remote access and remote participation in municipal and county meetings. We have written about this before and, sadly, nothing has changed. Yet we are following Einstein’s example when he explained that his success was because “I stay with problems longer.”
The county Board of Commissioners could easily if they chose allow remote access to their meetings via Zoom or some similar technology. We are not a big county, but we do have nearly 100,000 permanent residents spread out over 250 square miles of land. Even more importantly, we are the leading county in the state for second-home owners, who have the overwhelming bulk of properties that are market valued at over $80 billion. Maybe these individuals would like to see and participate in local government without having to travel to Moore Road for an in-person meeting.
Please don’t accept the old argument that this would be an expensive use of taxpayer money. The cost of allowing remote access and remote participation to commission meetings is a drop in the ocean when one considers the over $200 million county budget and the seeming unencumbered way in which salaries and additions to salaries are handed out.
We also don’t accept the argument that people don’t really want to participate. Encouraging that participation is the job of elected officials, not hiding behind small turnouts at face-to-face meetings.
Commission Director Len Desiderio is also the mayor of Sea Isle City, where, again, no remote access is provided. One could go on and point to municipalities in the county that do a fair job of providing some access to their major meetings – governing body meetings and in a few cases planning and zoning meetings.
One could also point to those who resist the use of the technology. For years former Mayor Tim Donohue of Middle Township would hold out the possibility of some form of remote access and participation but would never embrace it. Nothing has changed under the administration of Christopher Leusner. Middle is the largest municipality by land area in the county. Its size is often legitimately used as a reason why the Police Department needs the number of officers it has. Yet that same size is never acknowledged as a reason why technology should be used to promote public involvement in the business of the Township Committee.
It would be easy to run through all of the missed opportunities that otherwise mar some municipalities’ attempts at remote access.
Cape May does a wonderful job of providing video access to many of its meetings, but it has resisted allowing remote participation in the meetings. Such participation is not hard to do in today’s world, but clearly it’s not done in Cape May. You cannot call in to make public comment. If you rent a small place in the city or if you own a multimillion-dollar property, you must show up in the old school building auditorium to speak at a meeting. For whose convenience?
Avalon does the job of having both remote access and remote participation to its meetings, but falls down on the silliest of measures. At a point in every Avalon council meeting the chair will read a statement saying that the resolutions to be consider for adoption have been placed on a clipboard at the back of the room. Why? Why allow a property owner at a permanent home in Pennsylvania to view the meeting and offer public comment but deny him or her the opportunity to see the resolutions to be voted on? Because that is how it is done. No other answer is possible.
Some towns like Middle make the documents available but don’t allow remote access to the meetings. Avalon allows remote access but doesn’t make the documents available remotely. Ocean City releases a video of their meeting the day after the meeting occurs. Towns that allow some form of remote viewing of their governing body meetings still resist doing the same for planning and zoning meetings, which for many people with millions invested in the county are of great interest, depending on the agenda.
One town that does it well is Stone Harbor, with document access, remote viewing and participation at council meetings and remote viewing of planning and zoning board meetings. The meetings show the difference, with often 30 to 40 online participants even when the agenda is not particularly controversial.
The point is simple. Greater transparency and citizen participation are always possible when the commitment to transparency is more than mere words.
While considering these meetings, it is also the time to end the practice of routinely adding items to the meeting agenda that were not part of the public notice. The public has a right to know what will be discussed and potentially voted on in order to make an informed decision on participation. Last-minute additions to the agenda should be limited to legitimate emergencies, not the convenience of officials.
We have only touched on one aspect of transparency, but wouldn’t it be a great opportunity for the Board of Commissioners to announce that their meetings will allow remote access and participation? How about even a county grant program to support municipalities that agree to introduce the technology to allow real-time access and participation in local government?
When elected officials make it hard for you to participate in local government, it is because they want it that way, not because other options are not available.
It is time to demand greater access and easier participation, and it is time to hold those who resist accountable, starting with the county commissioners.
