Herschlag: Open Government Or Hide And Seek?

At the November city council meeting, two union contracts were approved for city employees. Once again there was no public discussion and no opportunity for the pubic to address the council. So how did this happen?

A little history. In the past the city council would vote on city contracts at the end of our meetings. It was a two step process. First we would go into a non-public session to discuss the contract, than we would come back into public session and vote on the the contract.

The problem was the pubic had no knowledge of when we would be discussing the contract. As I mentioned earlier, usually we would wait until the end of a meeting before going into the non-public session. Most if not all of the people who were attending the meeting would have left. By the time we came out of the nonpublic session there would usually be no one from the public left in city council chambers.

This is in part of what Leah Willingham reported in Monday’s Concord Monitor:

“I don’t think it was fair to the public to do that,” Mayor Jim Bouley said at a candidates forum at Concord High School on Oct. 29.

Bouley said the city’s Fiscal Policy Advisory Committee reviewed how other cities handled public information prior to approving contracts and recommended the city provide information to the public about cost items in tentative labor agreements on its consent agenda before city council meetings.

The city’s solicitor, Jim Kennedy and Deputy City Soliciter Danielle Pacik summarized the cost items related to the two new proposed contracts with the police supervisors and the municipal employees bargaining unit for the public to view ahead of the meeting.

Bouley said the city wanted to be as transparent as it could be, but the way the city had approached contracts in the past was a “weakness.”

“Contracts are treated differently than any other item that we vote on in the city,” he said. “Everybody in the community will have the opportunity to call their councilor to let them know exactly what they think: Is it a good contract, a bad contract, or something that could be improved or not improved.”

That is what the mayor said. So why when Bouely is set to begin his seventh term as mayor, are we only now attempting to address this issue? Is what occurred at Tuesday’s meeting any more transparent?

Two contracts were on the consent agenda. The public (you) had an opportunity to view the full agenda on the previous Thursday and had you gone through the consent agenda and found the items, you could have contacted a city councilor or sent a note to either a councilor or the city clerk.

The consent agenda is designed to speed things up. Items on consent are only discussed in public if a city councilor asks to have an item pulled (removed from the consent agenda). This means the only way you can comment is through the voice of a councilor or a letter or email that may be received in time to be placed on the consent agenda.

But unless the item was pulled, there would be no public discussion and regardless of whether the item was pulled, there would be no public testimony taken at the city council meeting.

I have to take responsibility here. I should have pulled the two contract items off of the consent agenda. At least this would have provided the opportunity for cost items to be discussed by the city council, in public, before we approved them. I was under the mistaken understanding that the consent items would be moved for a separate and open public vote. Again it is my fault for the misunderstanding and not following up with questions of procedure before our meeting.

But it shouldn't necessitate a magnifying glass and a fine toothed comb for you to find out what we are doing and what we are spending your money on.

Here’s what I think should happen. Once all parties - the union, the administration and the city council - agree in principal on a new contract, there should be an opportunity for you to review the contract and to have the opportunity to comment in public at a city council meeting. Before we vote on it.

Open government should mean exactly that. Hide and seek is a children’s game that you shouldn’t need to be playing to find out what your city government is doing in your name.