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.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I agree with the Councilman Phillips on this one. The discussions as to who to appoint to boards and committees should be treated like personnel issues and be discussed in private. Having been in this position I understand how difficult it is. Politicians put themselves out there so they expect negative remarks, but volunteers just don’t deserve this treatment. But, as you say, they can make a lot of bad decisions that impact on the community if they are no chosen carefully. I would suggest that council have their discussions in private and their votes in public. This would surely satisfy the sunshine laws.
Posted on September 6, 2006 4:46 PM
Brenda,
Unfortunately your solution (with which I totally agree) would violate NC's Open Meetings Law. Legally, city council may only confer with our attorney about legal matters such as lawsuits, discuss property acquisition, and discuss personnel matters in closed session. Board appointments do not fall under "personnel" since these volunteers are not paid city workers.
Posted on September 6, 2006 5:11 PM
Brenda, I get what you're saying. But I think of these "volunteers" as people with a whole lot of power who should be accountable to the public. There's a big difference between volunteering to build a house for Habitat for Humanity and making decisions that affect the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department.
Again - no shocker that I'm making this argument.
Sandy, I think you have a typo in your response to Brenda. You said "Unfortunately" when you really meant "Fortunately," right? (tee hee)
Posted on September 6, 2006 5:32 PM
Having serve a record 12 years on the Greensboro Zoning Commission I understand the hard work and commitment it takes to serve on a board or commission. It may, on the surface, seem like these discussions, especially the gnarly ones in which someone's service is being questioned, should be held in private. I agree with Margaret that these people hold powerful positions with a great deal of responsibility. To have that discussion take place in private allows the Council greater lattitude in their appointments. That is not necessarily a good thing. It was not long ago that the boards and commissions were "stacked" with friends of elected officials.
These elected official undergo scrutiny via the election process. I see no reason why any of us who are putting ourselves out there for public service be afforded any less scrutiny.
The more that is vetted in public, the greater the accountability.
Volunteers do a great service to this community, and need to be held accountable. "If you can't stand the heat..."
Posted on September 6, 2006 5:47 PM
Hmmmm. So if board members were paid a small stipend, $50 a meeting, let's say, would the fact that they would then be under the employ of the city allow their appointments to be discussed in private? Not that I, Mr. Sunshine, would suggest that -- just stirring the pot.
Posted on September 6, 2006 5:56 PM
jw, you weren't a friend of an elected official??
Posted on September 6, 2006 7:33 PM
Margaret,
Nope, no typo, I did indeed mean "unfortunately." {smile}
I can recall potential nominees in the past who had alcohol problems or anger-control issues that would likely render them unsuitable for board service, but I certainly would not want to air that information publicly and humiliate them.
Roch,
Interesting point, but I don't think so -- until council changed it within the last year or so, the members of the ABC board were paid for their service. We still could not discuss those appointments in closed session.
Posted on September 6, 2006 10:59 PM
Tom --
I had worked on a project with a member of the Greensboro City Council. It was through that work that the official became familiar with me and my credentials and felt I was a suitable appointee. We were not friends.
Posted on September 7, 2006 7:43 AM
A real sticky wicket here. Not wanting to humiliate a volunteer in public, as is Sandy's concern, is certainly valid. On the other hand, if some bit of innacurate or untrue information was being offered up in private, the volunteer would never have the opportunity to know why her nomination was rejected or to defend her reputation by correcting the record.
Posted on September 7, 2006 10:59 AM