Managing the message
Open government took a couple shots to the body yesterday.
First, Bruce Davis, the brand new chairman of the Guilford commissioners, closed the board's agenda meeting to the public. The meeting of the board chairman, vice chairman and key staff members is used to set the board's formal agenda. In the past, the meeting has been open to the press and public. Davis changed the practice because he feared "misinformation" would get out.
Then, last night, Greensboro City Council member Tom Phillips, who has refused to talk with reporter Matt Williams for the past year, suggested other council members do the same. He was upset that we had misreported some information from a previous meeting, which we had and which we corrected immediately.
Closing meetings and shunning reporters may be an effective way of managing the message. Or not. I turn to Billy Yow for wisdom and insight: "I would certainly hope that he (Davis) wouldn't run a closed door county government. Things tend to be better for fellow commissioners, the staff and the public if you have more open meetings."
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Is that legal? I thought that anytime a certain number of commissioners met the meeting had to be open to the public, with very specific exceptions, such as discussing personnel matters. I don't think an agenda meeting qualifies for an exemption to the open-meetings law. Am I wrong?
Posted on December 8, 2004 7:55 AM
You're not wrong Roch. That meeting just doesn't hit that "certain number of commissioners" mark. Usually, there are only two commissioners in the room and I've never seen more than three be there. In order to have quorum (and an open meeting) they'd have to have six.
Posted on December 8, 2004 9:19 AM
John, there seems to be some question about the correction of the mistake. Could you direct us to where we can find the correction?
Posted on December 8, 2004 10:26 AM
If you're referring to Hogg's Blog, he made an assumption that Phillips' comments concerned the Cone gas story. Phillips was actually talking another story he didn't like. In any case, we published the correction on the gas story this morning.
Posted on December 8, 2004 2:34 PM
May I ask some more general questions?
Suppose the newspaper was awful, inaccurate, and unfair to the people interviewed for stories.
Would it then be OK to shun its reporters?
If not, how should the interviewees protect themselves?
(I have opinions, but am interested in hearing yours)
Posted on December 8, 2004 9:43 PM
(Apologies if this is a double post - first try appeared to fail.)
May I ask some more general questions?
Suppose the newspaper was awful, inaccurate, and unfair to the people interviewed for stories.
Would it then be OK to shun its reporters?
If not, how should the interviewees protect themselves?
Posted on December 8, 2004 9:57 PM