Tag Archives: Open government

Burlington’s Open Meeting Problem

local/regional, , , , , ,

‘Sounds like it’s time for Sec. of State Jim Condos to bring his celebrated
Transparency Tour to the big city of Burlington.

I used to think Franklin County was the poster child for dodgy open-meeting practices, but this week, Miro Weinberger and company seem to be giving FC a run for its money.

On GMD, we’ve long questioned the wisdom of locating F-35 fighter planes in the densely populated area that is Burlington Airport. We’ve read the well-articulated concerns of neighbors and the glaringly deficient conclusions of officialdom.

We know that Burlington probably wouldn’t even have been considered for the siting if it were not for the concentrated efforts of Senator Leahy, the Chittenden County political elite and the development community, which seems to play a central role in local decision making.

Even assuming the best of intentions on the part of all of these interested parties, legitimate public concerns always seem to get short-shrift.

When such a controversial topic is discussed before City Councilors, one would think there would be special care taken to ensure that the rules governing open meetings are scrupulously observed, even to the point of over-compensation.

Even though the notice posted announcing the meeting stated that “no Council business will be discussed,” a quorum of Councilors was present (the minimum number of Councilors necessary to conduct Council business), and that of and by itself triggers the ‘open meeting’ requirement and all the rules associated with an open meeting.

To say that no Council business would be discussed is a bit disingenuous in any case, as a presentation by the Guard would undoubtedly involve some mention of the F-35 siting and questions and answers of interest to the public who are engaged on either side of the issue.

It is my understanding that, to remain within the confines of Open Meeting Law, either the public must be free to attend, or the number of Councilors in attendance must be below the number required to conduct a legal vote. If a quorum must be in attendance, the Council has no choice but to gavel a meeting before the public.

After that, if it can be justified under the limitations governing open meetings, the Council may go into Executive Session, excluding the public from the conversation. But there are strict rules governing the circumstances under which Executive Session may be convened. I believe the only allowable reasons are to discuss a city employee or legal matters which my be adversely affected by premature disclosure. They should be prepared to summarily explain why Executive Session is justified, and they must come out of Executive Session if a vote is to be taken.

In any case, maintaining public trust should be paramount in any question of excluding citizens from a Council gathering.

While the Secretary of States office is relatively powerless in enforcing open meeting rules, Jim Condos has recognized that Vermont has a problem in that area, and initiated his annual “Transparency Tour” not long after he took office.

Since receiving a polite reminder of the obligation to follow the open meeting rules a couple of years ago, I am happy to say that the City of St. Albans appears to have become much more conscientious. Apparently, the same cannot necessarily be said of Burlington.

As I have discovered, there is little legal recourse for the aggrieved in the event of an open meeting violation, so it is not surprising to learn that

“None of the community members…are currently pursuing any action.”

Sec. of State Jim Condos on “Sunshine Week”

Uncategorized, ,

It is always my pleasure to share Jim Condos’ words on any subject with GMD readers.  Open government has been Sec. Condos’ priority since he first stepped into the office.  It is a topic near and dear to my heart so it is a particular pleasure to bring this to you:

Sunshine Week, celebrated nationwide this week, is about opening the blinds and letting the sun shine in on government.

My long understanding about Open Government’s importance began while growing up in VT and is based on 18 years on the South Burlington City Council, 6 years on the VT League of Cities and Towns Board, 8 years in the VT Senate, and 5+ years as VT’s Secretary of State.

VT’s history has several examples of Vermonters who support Open Government – including former state legislator Matthew Lyon – jailed in 1798 for his beliefs; U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) – strong advocacy of Federal Freedom of Information; and my work with current Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin, to strengthen VT public records laws.

Who can argue against open and transparent government?

It means different things to different people. Arguments can be clouded with misinterpretations of the law, personal interests, and other factors. It also is easier to make decisions when nobody is watching.

The vast majority of our elected state/local officials are trustworthy, dedicated and passionate individuals who want to do the right thing.  However, corruption can exist.  In small doses corruption can be just as corrosive to our democracy as any prominent scandal, undermining the public’s trust.

There are many cases in the news where public and elected officials have clashed on their interpretation of laws covering public meetings and/or public records. Sometimes one side is clearly right – the other side is clearly wrong. Sometimes there is grey area in the law that is open for interpretation.

However, even with these grey areas, Vermont’s Constitution and state statutes have always been clear in their fundamental intent:  VT’s public officials ARE accountable to the people.

From the Vermont Constitution, Chapter 1, Article 6:
“That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.”

This is the very basis of public office – elected officials represent the people and are accountable to the people.

And just in case there was any confusion over the intent of Article 6, the VT statutes for Open Meeting Laws (1 V.S.A. § 311(a)) says:
“…the legislature finds and declares that public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and are accountable to them pursuant to Chapter I, Article VI of the Vermont constitution.”

Sunshine Week should be every week, and every day!

VT’s open meeting law recognizes that the media and the public are one and the same; AND they are entitled to: properly warned public meetings; posting of meeting agendas; an opportunity to express one’s opinion on matters considered by the public body during the meeting; knowing why a public body is going into Executive Session; and, the posting/availability of minutes 5 days after the meeting – even if in draft form.

Let’s continue this journey, that all public bodies conduct the business of the people and are, thus, accountable to the people.

Again, from the VT statutes (1 V.S.A. § 315), Access to Public Records:
“…to provide for free and open examination of records consistent with Chapter I, Article 6 of the Vermont Constitution. Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.”

These excerpts support a mandate on government (state and local) transparency so the people of VT know what is happening in their government. The only time the people lose their “right to know” is when greater harm to an individual or the state could come from releasing certain information. However, in these very rare cases, the burden of proof for withholding information is on the state and the exemption must be laid out in statute.

Public records are defined as: “…any written or recorded information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which is produced or acquired in the course of public agency business.”  1 V.S.A. § 317(b)

The courts have upheld the notion that the public’s access to records “shall be liberally construed to implement this policy, and the burden of proof shall be on the public agency to sustain its action.”

This means if that which is being disputed falls in a gray area – the courts will likely fall on the side of disclosure.

Simply, illegal meetings and improperly withheld public records offend our notions of openness, accountability, and the core of our democracy.

Open Government just makes good sense for officials and the people they serve.  

So, to any public officials reading this – please think twice about what you “text,” “tweet” or “email” a fellow board member or constituent.  Those messages can all constitute government work and be classified public records.
And to the public, in Vermont, you do have a right to know!

Let the sun shine in and on government – let’s restore our faith in government.

Jim Condos, Vermont’s 38th Secretary of State, has served since January 2011.