EDITORIAL: Secret meetings? Not in Santa Barbara
By DAILY SOUND STAFF -- JUNE 9, 2011
When Randy Rowse was appointed to replace Das Williams, some people made hay over the new conservative majority taking over the Santa Barbara City Council.
Frankly, it’s refreshing to see more political balance on the council than in the recent past. The conservatives have forced a more robust public discussion about homelessness, affordable housing and gangs.
But the conservative majority’s recent support of a proposal to allow a quorum of elected officials to meet in private is shocking and shameful.
Leading the charge is Santa Barbara City Councilman Dale Francisco.
Francisco, elected in 2007, said the restriction in the Brown Act that prevents a quorum of city council members from meeting in private to discuss public policy is restrictive and bad for good government.
How can he make such an outrageous statement with a straight face?
The issue arose Tuesday as part of the city’s annual review of its legislative platform – essentially a document that provides a general outline of the council’s collective views of potential legislative matters on the horizon.
Thanks to the council’s 4-3 vote, the city of Santa Barbara is now on record as opposing the Brown Act requirement that a quorum of elected officials always meet in public when discussing city matters. The Daily Sound calls on members of the council who voted for this, Francisco, Rowse, Frank Hotchkiss, Michael Self to rethink whether this is the right direction for the city.
The Ralph M. Brown Act is California’s open meetings law, which requires elected officials to conduct their business in public with full transparency. The law is also designed to allow the public full participation through timely noticing of agendas and other documents.
No matter how he attempts to justify it, Francisco’s divergence from state law flies in the face of good government.
Francisco tried to explain his position at Tuesday’s meeting.
“The reality of the Brown Act is that most people in the public have no idea how much it limits and constricts the ability of the people who they have elected to represent them, to actually discuss the issues.
At a certain point we have to recognize that there is no law, no constitution that will by itself – through its operation – create good government, create government that is free of corruption. That is not going to happen. It requires the vigilant attention of the citizens.”
Francisco said it’s up to the public to pay attention.
“The citizens need to watch what's happening on City Council,” Francisco said. “That is how they will know if something is wrong.”
It’s remarkable that Francisco, who ran for City Council on a platform of being a neighborhood advocate, would now suggest that it’s OK for elected officials to meet behind closed doors and then leave it up to the citizens to sort it out on Tuesday afternoons.
And although Francisco at one point said he wasn’t pushing for elected officials to come to a decision behind closed doors, his words later in the meeting belied that perspective.
“What I am arguing is that it is absolutely essential that the people that you elect to represent you have the freedom to discuss among themselves the issues of importance that come before the city,” Francisco said. “Anything that we decide always has to come before the public for a final determination. Everyone up here has to explain, or should explain, why they came to these conclusions and why they voted the way they did. It is the responsibility of the citizens to listen to those explanations and decide whether they make sense or not.”
Scary.
In a city with a rich history of pro-active civic participation, this kind of logic seems out of step with the mainstream.
No comments:
Post a Comment