Public or private?
Long post, but hopefully you'll find it worthwhile:
Councilman Tom Phillips and I talked today about what's usually a dull (but important) part of city council meetings: appointing citizens to various boards and commissions.
On Tuesday night, the council voted not to reappoint Portia Shipman to the Greensboro Zoning Commission, in part because of poor attendance. She was later placed on the Greensboro Redevelopment Commission.
Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small, who appointed her and sought to reappoint her, said it was wrong to say negative things about Shipman's performance in public, given that she's volunteering her time.
Phillips agreed. Here's what he said last night:
"I hate that we have to discuss these things in public. Years ago, we were able to discuss all this in executive session.
"We made an appointment earlier this evening that, frankly, had we been able to discuss it in executive session, I would have been opposed to it because I think it could potentially cause a problem. But we can't do that."
Well, obviously I wanted to know who he was talking about, since council members made several appointments last night. Phillips told me today if he had wanted to clarify his position, he would have done so last night (Trust me: It sounded nicer when he said it than it reads in print). So I can't give you an answer.
But it also raised a larger question about what aspects of government should be public and what should be private. And that's something Phillips and I agreed to disagree on.
No surprise here - I think those discussions should take place in the light of day, whether they're positive or negative. Those boards make many, many decisions that impact this community, and citizens have every right to hear a lively discussion about each candidate's qualifications. What's more, elected leaders should feel obliged to speak out against nominees, or else risk putting someone on a board who isn't qualified and can (theoretically) do harm to the community.
Phillips said he understands why I would say that. But he wishes council members could still hold lively debates about nominees - in private, like they did when he first served on the city council in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
In fact, since the open meeting laws have changed, and the discussions have started taking place in public, "the quality of our boards has declined, in my opinion," he said.
Why? Because council members don't want to criticize volunteers in public, he said. So they sit on their hands rather than speak negatively about candidates who are nice, good people, but inappropriate to serve on boards.
An interesting topic, one I hope you will discuss.