Government bodies should conduct their business in the open before residents and other interested parties so everyone can listen to the exchange of views and information. Discussion held in public allows residents to have a common understanding of where a council or county board is coming from when it finally acts, and individuals have an opportunity to correct bad information or to persuade council members to reconsider positions.
This is why the Arizona Open Meetings law generally requires city councils to hold study sessions, workshops and background briefings in public, instead of applying only to the meetings where actual votes take place. In the past, the Legislature has specifically added language to the law to cover advisory bodies and subcommittees, to prevent governments from making decisions in smaller groups behind closed doors and then rubber-stamping those decisions with formal votes during a public meeting of the full body.
But the Gilbert Town Council recently thwarted the Legislature’s intent as two council members have been researching concerns raised by some residents about doorknob advertising that continues to appear even when property owners have posted signs telling flier delivery people to stay away.
As Tribune writer Beth Lucas reported Friday, Mayor Steve Berman asked council members Joan Krueger and Don Skousen to lead a committee that included representatives from the police, the municipal court and business leaders to look into the issue. Called an “informal subcommittee,” Krueger and Skousen apparently have been working diligently on the issue for the past month or so, but no meetings have been held in public.
So we have no idea who Krueger and Skousen have been talking to or what information they might have told. We don’t know if they been dealing equally with all of the affected parties – homeowners, businesses that use door-to-door advertising, and the advertising companies – or if their efforts were focused more heavily on one particular side.
Town officials apparently believe that calling the subcommittee “informal” somehow excludes this group from the state Open Meetings law. But the statute is quite clear: “Public body includes all quasi-judicial bodies and all standing, special or advisory committees or subcommittees, or appointed by, such public body.” (A.R.S. 38-431 (6)).
The mere use of the word “subcommittee” should have alerted someone at Gilbert Town Hall that the Arizona Open Meetings law is at issue here. But the term isn’t important. It’s the fact that two Gilbert council members are researching the issue on behalf of their colleagues and will soon make a recommendation on what the town should do. Such research and discussion should have taken place in a public forum with appropriate advance notice so anyone who’s interested could be in the audience to watch.Government discussion held in secret breeds suspicion about motivations and raises doubt that a government body is really considering all of the relevant facts and opinions. Gilbert certainly has done that here. Resident Naida Bloch, who is passionate about getting the town’s help in stopping doorknob advertising at her home, first called my attention earlier this week to the fact that Skousen/Krueger subcommittee never had a public meeting. She’s worried about what the advertisers might have told these council members in secret.
The council can avoid such suspicions simply by following the Open Meetings Law.
Twitter