When I try to explain how the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) works, it sounds so ridiculous to most people that they either:
a) Don’t believe me or
b) Don’t care.
And I think that is because what they see when they watch our meetings is obviously so performative, they rightly conclude that some or all of it must be somehow pre-arranged.
I’ve had people ask me, quite sincerely about the process of our ‘pre-meeting meetings’. Friends, I hate to break it to ya, but there are no pre-meeting meetings. At least, no legal ones. 🙂
The fact is, the members of the City Council are not, Not, NOT supposed to discuss anything that might come before the City Council outside of the gavel. In short, the real discussion is supposed to occur only on the dais.
Really. No. Really. Why are you laughing?
Serial Meetings
When I first ran for office, an old timer asked me, “Where are the breakfasts?” And what he meant was, Where are the cronies all gathering to make the real decisions. ie. where are the ‘pre-meeting meetings.’ Because in the past, that kind of thing did happen at a very popular local diner.
But with the passage (and various updates) of OPMA, that kind of thing is harder to pull off. And besides it’s unnecessary. You can be just as corrupt without even being in the same room as your colleagues. It works like this.
I phone a colleague about an issue on the next agenda. That’s just two fellas talkin’ here, ossifer. Nuthin’ to see, folks. And they, in turn, can hang up, and call a third colleague to discuss the same matter. That’s three. Still OK. But…
The moment that third colleague picks up the phone to discuss the same issue with a fourth colleague? That’s a majority of the Council discussing the item, and that is a serial meeting, which is illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllegal.
Get it? A quorum of the City Council all discussed the same issue. And whether or not they came to some form of (cough) ‘understanding’ off the dais, they might have. It has the appearance of corruption. It is an OPMA Violation. It’s not merely unethical, or fattening, it is a violation of State Law.
A serial meeting is basically insider trading, where several interested parties in a transaction have access to information and strategy others do not. That makes any fair market impossible. Which is why that practice is also illegal.
Stay safe…
The only safe way for an elected to conduct business is to not discuss agenda items off the dais. Obviously, this is politics, so Cms will talk. Each of us has specific expertise. And I have no problem asking one colleague a question, or taking a question from a colleague. But it must be with the understanding that this is a dialogue for information only and won’t be part of that ‘telephone game’ of decision making.
(What I’ve proposed all along is a Councilmember Information Request, ie. when Cms ask questions of the City, the answers be automatically shared with all seven of us. Again, so that no Cm has access to information ahead of the meeting which others do not.)
But at the end of the day it’s really up to each of us to pinky swear that we are not engaging in either full on group meetings, or a serial meeting.
Why it matters on the dais…
This is the main reason I object to any attempts to limit the discussion period on the dais, either to the number of times we can speak, or donation of time or Rule 26 (passing an ordinance in one reading) or whatever.
Think about any real debate you’ve had with a colleague or friend or spouse. Can you come to any useful agreement on any substantial issue with only two opportunities to speak or ask questions? Of course not. On important issues it often takes time, and a lot of back and forth, to change people’s minds–and that’s assuming they walked into the discussion willing to have their minds changed.
The only reason to limit debate is if you know the outcome ahead of time; ie. if you’re not open to (or interested in) changing hearts and minds.
In that case, you’re just letting people speechify in order to appear ‘fair’ and then vote. Under the current system, no minds are expected to be changed, so the goal is simply to get through it as ‘efficiently’ as possible.
It not just bad optics…
When we limit debate to a very few and narrow parameters, and crow about how rapidly we’re able to pass legislation, what we’re actually telling the public is that, “this was all just a formality.”
And they get it. It doesn’t just look bad. It is bad.
Real decisions, the key moments in life with friends, colleagues and loved ones, take time and are often messy. That’s one way you can tell they were real decisions.