Government transparency. I never met a politician who wasn’t on the side of greater transparency. Yet taxpayers struggle to force local governments to increase transparency.
So if we all want it, why is it so hard to achieve? The answer is easy. We don’t all want it. Not really.
Is a desire for transparency behind the recent comments by county commissioners defending the fact that the public cannot get copies of the voice record of a commission meeting for two weeks after the meeting?
Is it a desire for transparency that has many county municipalities unwilling to allow real-time remote access to governing body meetings? This is often in municipalities where the majority of the taxpayers don’t live here year-round and cannot attend meetings in person.
———————–
When you do not allow remote access in real time to a meeting,
you are telling the citizen that he or she must find a way to be at the meeting.
———————–
Is it a desire for greater transparency that had county and municipal governments siding with the New Jersey League of Municipalities in favor of greater restrictions on the Open Public Records Act?
Is the desire for transparency so often referenced by our elected officials evident in towns where basic minutes of meetings are eight and nine months behind? Or where the minutes of closed sessions still provide no insight into what was discussed even though the supposed need for secrecy has long passed?
Are we seeking transparency when meetings are held during the work day and the rationale given is that it is for the convenience of the municipal or county staff who may have to attend? Why is the convenience of the staff more important than the convenience of the taxpayer?
If we seek transparency in government why do so many of our governing bodies allow important amendments to resolutions at meetings where they intend to vote on the resolution? Why do they so easily fall back on the convenience of adding resolutions at meetings where the topic was not part of the public agenda?
When you do not allow remote access in real time to a meeting, you are telling the citizen that he or she must find a way to be at the meeting if an issue is important to them. Then the officials actually feel it is OK to add to the public agenda at the meeting. So if an issue is important, show up is what taxpayers are told. And if we added the issue you find important after the public agenda was posted, well you should have a way to know that as well.
The disdain for the citizen in so much of this is beyond belief. Tell one of those governing bodies that they are not being transparent and you get angry responses from elected officials who are outraged that anyone could say they did not go out of their way to be transparent.
If we believe in transparency, the things to do are very simple.
First, recognize that many of our governing bodies have been living off rising ratables that come from second homeowners. Give them real-time access. Real-time video access with the ability to participate in public comment is a non-negotiable must. No municipality can reasonably argue they cannot afford it.
If attendance is light to begin with, work to increase it. Participation is the goal. Post the videos for asynchronous viewing for those who could not watch the meeting in real time.
Second, consider timing meetings so those taxpayers who work can attend them in real time. If that is a source of grumbling among certain staff members, so be it. There are many perks to municipal employment and that employment is paid for by the citizens.
Third, make a practice strictly adhered to that items cannot be added to the public agenda after that agenda has been posted unless the lack of a vote on an item poses an emergency concern for the municipality. In other words, if a municipality did not do its homework in time that by and of itself does not constitute a reason to add to the agenda without public notice.
Fourth, minutes, especially of closed session meetings where video recording is not done, must tell the public what transpired once the issue is no longer requiring closed discussion. Minutes should have to pass a reasonability test. Do they inform the public on the issues? They do not exist just so the municipality can check off a box that says they were done. They should be current, accurate and informative.
Fifth, the documents that are part of a meeting – copies of resolutions and ordinances to be voted on – should be electronically available to the remote public. Saying that the resolution to be voted on is available in printed form at the governing body meeting does nothing for the taxpayer who lives in Pennsylvania and must access the meeting on video.
Lastly, stop the practice of having governing body members conferring in small groups so that the votes are all decided prior to the public meeting. The public is entitled to the discussion of issues and to hear what individual elected officials have to say. This happens so frequently that it has become the norm rather than the exception.
None of this is hard. All of it fits together into what we might call a transparency package. None of it is outside the financial ability of our municipalities and it certainly can find financial support in the $200 million plus budget of the county.
It is time to have everyone stop proclaiming their commitment to transparency and start doing something about it.
———-
From the Bible: –taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man. From 2 Corinthians 8:21
