March 6, 2003
Let the public in
This thought occurs to me every time I eat a particularly large doughnut: Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.
If you talk for any length of time with almost everyone involved in Lakewood city government, they will tell you they are eager to hear from citizens. Nearly anyone, from the city council to the city manager to any number of staff, will tell you that.
However, public involvement begins with proper communication. And when it has a chance to stand up for public involvement, the city has fallen short. At least, that's what I told the council on March 3 during its public comment section.
At issue are two bills in the state legislature which address open meetings. Both bills require agendas to tell you - the citizen - what exactly the city will be talking about at a meeting. The city is opposing both bills.
Here’s the context: Some of us are nuts enough to show up at council meetings almost every time. You probably don't, and that's OK. You should not have to. But you should be able to decide whether you need to show up for a particular meeting.
Hopefully, by the way, you know how to find out what the council will be discussing on any given Monday. The agendas are posted late Fridays on the city's Web site and are physically posted on bulletin boards; the one I usually see is at the Lakewood Library.
Under current state law, the city does not have to tell you in advance exactly what council members will be discussing, particularly if it is not taking a formal action. A good example is the retreat the council held at the beginning of February. Many of the agenda items were very clear - "animal control," for example. But not all. The worst example was an agenda item, 'citizen concerns.' That's pretty meaningless. The agenda might as well as read, "stuff," or 'things," or maybe "things and stuff."
Not only is that poor notice to the public, it's lousy treatment of the public. I guess it's comparable to what you expect when you work in an office. When someone at your office tells you they plan to have a meeting, that person owes you an explanation of what the meeting will be about. It's common courtesy and professionalism. You have a reason to know why you should take time to come to a meeting.
Another great point about the legislation is that it requires the city to let you know when final action could be taken on an item. That’s important because some issues go on and on; you should know when a final vote is expected. Again – you should not have to attend every council meeting in order to keep track of what is going on. The sense that you have to attend every council meeting to do so is the sort of thing that undermines confidence in a city.
I understand that the city is concerned about some other implications of the bills, SR 5151 and 5181. But I hope instead of opposing the legislation, the city should actively work to clarify it. That would be the right thing to do for you.
If you have an idea or suggestion for a column, please send it along to wtneary@hotmail.com.
Click here to close this window.
Click here to close this window.