|
Officials must follow Open Meetings Act
Published October 25, 2009
District Attorney Jeri Yenne’s letter asking Freeport City Council to be clearer in its agenda postings was directed at one city’s officials, but the message should be heard clearly by all elected and appointed groups subject to the Open Meetings Act.
There already is evidence others are listening, and that is a big win for people who pay taxes in Brazoria County communities and who deserve to be part of the decision-making process.
Yenne’s letter to Freeport council cautioned that its agenda postings for closed-door sessions were too vague. We wholeheartedly agree.
“Consultation with city manager about city manager duties” just won’t cut it. Postings must clearly list which exemption to open meetings laws the council is declaring that would allow them to meet outside the public’s eye. To operate simply with a catch-all agenda posting is to defy the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, and unfortunately, Freeport is not the only council that has taken to using such a generic posting as cover.
Whether it is an intentional effort to discuss sensitive matters away from reporters and voters, or simply is the result of a misunderstanding of the law, it has got to stop.
In Freeport, the matter came to Yenne’s attention when former fire and EMS chief John Stanford claimed he had knowledge of closed-door sessions where council discussed creating city employee positions and where they hashed out contentious Freeport Economic Development Corp. issues. City Manager Jeff Pynes fired Stanford earlier this month, and Stanford has filed a federal discrimination complaint against the city, so he clearly has a stake in this argument. Still, if council did talk about creating a new city position, that should have been done in open session, with a posted agenda item so people would know it was coming and be there to weigh in.
Freeport officials said they would be more thorough in agenda postings in the future, and we all should hold them to that.
Yenne said she is not pursuing a criminal case, and this is not the first time she has sent out a letter of this kind. If the pattern continues though, Freeport could face criminal penalties, she said.
“Nobody is exempt from the Open Meetings Act,” she said. “And if other entities out there are in any way having private meetings at locations other than their true meeting places or talking on the phone and polling one another, everybody knows we can’t do this.”
At least one other public entity with frequently vague agenda postings apparently took notice.
On the same day a story about Yenne’s letter to Freeport appeared in The Facts, Clute City Council took no action on hiring an acting city manager. The meeting’s agenda, which simply said “city manager,” wasn’t descriptive enough, Mayor Calvin Shiflet said. So council called a special meeting for Monday, with an agenda that clearly spells out their intention to hire someone.
These are recent examples, but they are not isolated ones. The Texas Legislature mandates elected officials undergo training about open government, but with new members continually joining boards and councils, a reminder people are watching to make sure the law is followed closely is helpful.
Yenne says she doesn’t relish getting involved in city politics, but we know she did the right thing here. Protecting the public’s right to know is worth stepping on a few egos.
City Councils and school boards would do right to remember that pubic meetings are not meant to be rubber-stamping sessions, where members merely ratify things they have hashed out in private. They are places for true, open debate, under the watchful eye of the people who pay the bills.
This editorial was written by Yvonne Mintz, managing editor of The Facts.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print
|
|
|
 |
|
Click for all
Top Ads listing
|
