Amarillo City Council members are going to hold a series of public hearings to interview five individuals who’ve applied for an opening that’s about to occur on the five-member governing board.

It should be interesting to hear the five hopefuls make their case in public, in front of those they want to serve.

Then it’s going to get interesting.

Council members likely then will huddle in private to talk about who they want to join their ranks. They’ll declare their intention to discuss “personnel matters” that are exempt from public review.

I wish they would finish the job in the open, too.

The Open Meetings Act allows governing bodies to meet in secret only under certain circumstances. It’s quite clear:

Personnel issues; real estate transactions; potential or pending litigation. There also are a list of other subjects that might or might be covered under those general provisions.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/og/openmeeting_hb.pdf

I totally understand the reason for hiding many of these provisions from public scrutiny. The governing body doesn’t want to reveal their negotiating strategy involving the sale of real estate, which could cost a lot of money. Nor does the body want to talk about privileged legal information given to it by legal counsel; they have this attorney-client provision to honor.

Personnel-related issues also are spelled out. If a city employee is being disciplined, then that person has a right to have his or her privacy protected. The Open Meetings Act, though, does allow the affected employee to request — or demand — that the discussion occur in public.

The interviewing of City Council candidates, I submit, doesn’t fall into the same category of “personnel” matters as the example I just gave.

These individuals aren’t being disciplined. They are seeking a public service job — and a volunteer job at that, given that council members earn a whopping 10 bucks per meeting.

They seek to sell themselves on their commitment to public service. Why not, then, allow the public access to the views expressed by those who make the appointment?

I’ve noted before that most of the current City Council members were elected in May 2015 on a promise to bring more transparency to city government.

Here’s their chance to show they mean what they said.

And please, gentlemen, do not use the Open Meetings Act in a manner that is contrary to the principles on which it was enacted. Let’s not hide behind some provision that empowers you meet in secret.

Empowerment doesn’t make it mandatory.