UPDATE: Councilmember Godden's office just informed me that the private budget briefing meetings will be discontinued. Instead, budget staff members will brief council members one-on-one in private sessions. That seems like a distinction without a difference, it's certainly less efficient. This whole espisode could lead to some good discussion about transparency in government, something the Council is doing right now through a special committee on open government led by Council President Richard Conlin.
EARLIER Post: Well, I woke up this morning to newspaper headlines and an editorial challenging the Council's years-long practice of private briefings on various topics in anticipation of public meetings and hearings. I've been on the Council for 16 months and these meetings occur quite frequently on a wide range of issues. I have participated in briefings on the city budget, police issues and operations, federal and state legislation, and employment issues, to name just a few of the topics. City staff and Council members use these briefings to share information, answer questions, understand context, and gain insight. It's a key part of our learning process. These meetings are not used to arrive at a conclusion or predetermined outcome; I'm never asked to stake out a position or advocate for a specific solution. In fact, the meetings often raise more questions than anything else.
Now, the city attorney seems to suggest that these meetings potentially violate the state's open meetings law. The practical question I have is what triggers the requirements of the law? Is it because four council members were present? How about three? Two? Gosh, can I meet with myself? (That's a joke, folks!)
I understand a skeptical public might view these meetings in a less favorable light. I received this thoughtful email from a Seattle constituent earlier this morning:
"I have been a long time supporter and very much appreciate the change that you
have brought to the council. However, I believe that you and the council are
simply wrong on the issue of holding closed-private meetings on the budget. In
this morning's paper you stated that that the closed door meetings allow you to
"talk freely and debate issues." I doubt that many people would dispute your
justification and as a public employee myself I completely understand why closed
meeting might be more efficient. However, as a public servant, you are bound to
a different standard; one that requires that the light of day be shed on how the
people's money is going to be spent. There is no point in me trying to lecture
you on the Open Public Meetings Act, I am quite sure that you are very familiar
with it. I just wanted to voice my strong opinion that the council is wrong on
this issue and that after having to endure 8 years of a federal government that
made all of its decisions behind closed doors the public is ready for some
transparency from its elected officials."
I fully understand and respect this writer's perspective, but wonder how to learn and gain perspective on complex issues that I must digest and understand in rapid order prior to hearing from constituents, weighing options, and making decisions. Did the framers of the state's public meetings law really intend to prohibit these kind of briefing sessions? Did they intend to bar any and all private meetings where any Council members are present? If not, then what is the threshold that requires such meetings be public? Prior to yesterday, our legal counsel set that threshold at no more than four members.
The Council has scheduled a series of public meetings on the budget over the next few weeks where we will listen to the public, debate among ourselves, and finally make decisions. You can see the schedule of these public meetings here.
By the way, want to know what happened in yesterday's "secret" meeting? It started about 4:05 p.m. in Councilmember Godden's office. The city's finance director handed out a draft list of potential budget cuts and the gist of what he said to us was ". . . this is what we will present at the Council's April 20 public budget meeting . . . let me tell you about them. . . let me know if you need any supporting documentation about any item prior to your meeting . . . do you have questions . . ." There were several questions about six or eight of the line items, a general discussion about potential employee layoffs and furloughs, and acknowledgment that the Mayor has not finalized all of his budget decisions. I left the meeting at 4:55 p.m.