So, yesterday, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) scheduled a public hearing on paid sick leave during the Common Council meeting – where we were discussing inclusionary zoning. Obviously, not a very thoughtful thing to do. (Hell, even Terrence Wall wrote a letter asking who scheduled – or allowed to be scheduled – two controversial topics for the same time. Yup – pigs are flying, hell is freezing over and the world is coming to an end, T and I agree on something!)
However, something happened, and the meeting wasn’t properly noticed. This happens from time to time and I don’t think it was anything the EDC commission or staff did, or didn’t do, that caused this to happen. I actually think it is unfortunate that the meeting had to be cancelled, because I know how much work goes into getting a good turn out at a public hearing. It also sends a terrible message to the public when they take the time to show up – for nothing.
So, even tho it was poorly planned, I am disappointed the meeting had to be cancelled.
But . . . what happens next, is pretty inexcusable.
Apparently the city staff found out that morning that the meeting wasn’t properly scheduled. According to one of the city attorneys I bumped into, they spent alot of time on the phone that day, trying to explain that the EDC couldn’t hold the meeting. Sometime later in the day, Robbie Webber started asking questions about why she didn’t see the meeting on line. Hmmmm . . . .it appeared that while the meeting notice was in Legistar, it was not on the weekly schedule. Problem is, the weekly schedule, specifically the one posted in the hallway of the City-County building, is the official, legal public notice. According to state law, it has to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting starts, so the meeting had to be cancelled.
Anyways, the meeting wasn’t properly noticed and apparently they knew that in the morning, but alders didn’t get a notice of cancellation until 3:45. Prior to getting the notice, I found out about the cancellation from someone who saw Alder Webber’s questions and called the staff and they were told not to show up. The staff’s explanation to alders was as follows:
From: Lisa Veldran To: ALL ALDERS Date: Tuesday – January 17, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: CANCELLED – EDC Public Hearing on Sick Leave Ordinance Alders – FYI – in case you were planning on attending this evening’s EDC
Public Hearing on the Sick Leave Ordinance – Lisa, Council Office>>> Katherine Naherny 01/17/06 2:56 PM >>>
Most unfortunately, the meeting notice did not get posted to the weekly
calendar and physically posted in the City County Bldg. It was sent to the
Clerk via email by by P&D staff last week but apparently was “lost” as many
other items were last week in the email conversion and it was not caught until
this morning.Since this hearing has been widely publicized in other ways, I conferred with
Michael May on how to proceed.It would be a violation of the open meetings law to hold the meeting so the
EDC will not hold an official meeting. The EDC Chairman Mark Bugher and I
will go to the meeting site, explain to those who attend what happened and
have an informal meeting with those who may want to share thoughts and views.
Ok – first the meeting isn’t properly noticed, then the notice of cancellation goes out much later than it should have . . . but next, it gets even wierder . . . .the staff was telling advocates for the ordinance not to show up. They called the EDC members and told them not to show up . . . but at the same time, they were planning to hold an informal meeting. They even put it in writing:
The EDC Chairman Mark Bugher and I will go to the meeting site, explain to those who attend what happened and have an informal meeting with those who may want to share thoughts and views.
Um . . . if this isn’t a technical violation of the open meetings law, this is definitely a blatant attempt to get around the open meetings law. I’m kind of shocked that city staff would encourage this activity. Holding an informal meeting – where some people were told not to show up – vs. an official meeting doesn’t sound legal to me.
What’s even more frustrating, is this is not the first time committees have tried to hold a public hearing when they didn’t have a legal meeting. Back when I was first on the council, in 2001, the Section 8 Landlord Committee (I forget the technical name) wanted to allow people to speak on an issue when they didn’t have a legal meeting (in that case I thought it was also not a legally noticed meeting, but it could have been lack of quorum.) And they tried to hold the meeting anyways and they were told they couldn’t do it. This prompted Dorothy Borchardt to sponsor an ordinance change that would have added the following language to our ordinances regarding quorum:
“(3) Attendance and Quorum.
(a) If at any board, commission or committee meeting, a quorum is not secured within fifteen (15) minutes of the officially scheduled meeting time, the board, commission or committee shall adjourn without taking any action, except that it may set a date and time for its next meeting.
(b) Notwithstanding Subdivision (a), above, if members of the public have appeared to address the board, committee or commission, in compliance with applicable rules, pursuant to Sec. 3.27(4)(f), the members shall allow them to speak and shall see that a record is kept of the general substance of their comments.
This ordinance was placed on file. (In City committee language, “placed on file” means “killed” or essentially removed from consideration.) I’m quite certain it was placed on file because it didn’t meet the open meetings law requirements. So, the fact that Mark Bugher, the chairperson of the EDC and Katherine Naherny, staff to the EDC, tried to hold the public meeting – and simply call it informal, is all the more bothersome.
Open meetings laws can be frustrating from time to time, but we can’t just violate them (or the spirit of the law) because it is convenient. Open meetings laws serve a purpose. They are there to ensure that the public has knowledge of meetings where public decisions will be made. They are there to give fair notice. In this case, many people were told not to show up and they didn’t. To move forward with any type of meeting, formal or informal, legal or illegal was just wrong. We’re not running a business here. This is government, and we have laws to protect the public that guide our actions and any attempt to get around those laws should not be supported by staff and should be strictly discouraged.
