Tag Archives: Texas Open Meetings Act

local news

A bus ride spurred this call for transparency

I have told you on this blog about how Farmersville, a small city in Collin County, works to avoid the appearance of secret meetings among its City Council. It posts a “notice of potential quorum” when council members plan to gather in the same room … even for a social event!

The notice seeks to forestall any question among residents whether the council is acting in the public interest, or talking about public matters in, um, “secret.”

I happen to think it’s a capital idea that perhaps ought to be written into the Texas Open Meetings Act.

I haven’t told you, until now, how City Attorney Alan Lathrom came up with the idea.

It was in 1995. Lathrom served on the legal staff in Arlington, Texas, in Tarrant County. The Arlington City Council planned to attend the inaugural of newly elected Gov. George W. Bush. So, the council rented a bus, on which all the members would ride from Arlington to Austin to attend Gov. Bush’s inauguration.

Lathrom then had this notion: What if someone questions whether the council is conducting public business on the lengthy bus ride from here to there, and then back again? He told me recently there had been some rumbling and grumbling in Arlington about the council being in the same vehicle for such a lengthy period of time.

He came up with the idea of posting the bus ride as a notice of a “potential quorum” by the City Council. He decided to post it in accordance with the statute that requires a 72-hour notice prior to the “quorum” forming inside the bus.

The trip occurred. The council went to Austin to clap for the new governor. They shook many hands, slapped many backs, had a great time and returned home to Arlington. My guess is that it didn’t pass any ordinances either while traveling to Austin and back.

With that, an idea was born and it lives on today in little ol’ Farmersville, Texas.

Well played, Mr. City Attorney.

local news, Uncategorized

City’s transparency a result of an ‘abundance of caution’

You want transparency in local government? You want to see how a certain city in North Texas handles any potential questions about whether its elected governing body is meeting in “secret,” or conducting public business “illegally”?

Farmersville, a Collin County community of roughly 3,500 residents, exercises what City Attorney Alan Lathrom describes as an “abundance of caution” in alerting residents of a “potential quorum” of elected City Council members.

The city posts a “notice of potential quorum” in advance of any event that might draw more than a majority of City Council members into the same room. That includes, as it did in November and December, an announcement of planned Thanksgiving and Christmas parties.

The city’s website contained under its “Council Meetings” tab announcements of those events. The city is not required under state law to post such events, Lathrom. “We just do it out of an abundance of caution,” he said, citing the possibility that inquiring minds might want to know if council members were discussing public business in a setting other than a called public meeting.

Lathrom said the Texas Open Meetings Act makes specific exemptions for social events. Council members are allowed to gather at holiday parties, for example, without it being posted in advance by City Hall, he said.

Lathrom said the city simply is trying to be as transparent as possible by posting these notices of potential quorum.

I stumbled upon the Christmas party notice recently while perusing the Farmersville website in search of some contact information. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised at my discovery. I told Lathrom of my surprise in a phone conversation.

He doesn’t ascribe much in the way of a need to cover the city’s backside. Lathrom simply employs this strategy because, well, it’s the right thing to do.

I have covered many local government bodies over many years as a print journalist. This is the first example I’ve ever seen of a governing entity taking such a proactive posture toward transparency.

We hear occasional gripes from residents that government seeks to do too much of the public’s business improperly or even illegally. Do notices such as this generate a lot of public interest? That’s not likely. At least Farmersville City Hall can declare that it warned residents of a “potential quorum” of City Council members.

I consider that a fairly see-through approach to local government.

legal news, local news

Texas Open Meetings Act can serve as shroud

TOMA-Slider

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.

 

local news, political news

City enters new era of council selection

eades

I’m going to get something off my chest right off the top.

The person I wanted the Amarillo City Council to select to join its ranks didn’t make the cut; he’s not one of the five finalists chosen from a pool of 14 applicants.

Given that his name already is out there, I will just tell you it was Cole Camp. He’s the one I was hoping would get the job. He’s a friend of mine who, in my view, would have served with great distinction.

OK. That’s out of the way.

Now, about the selection process, which is a most fascinating departure from what has been the norm at City Hall. In the past, council members would solicit replacements privately, consider the individuals who’d expressed interest, meet and then announce the selection to the public. That’s what happened a couple of years ago when Councilman Jim Simms died and the council appointed Ron Boyd to serve until the next municipal election.

Council members are going to interview the five finalists — all fine folks, I’m sure — in public. They’re going to ask them questions prepared in advance. Each candidate is going to have 30 minutes to answer them.

Then the council members will consider their selection. The person they pick will succeed Dr. Brian Eades, who’s leaving the council this summer when he moves to Colorado. I presume they’ll declare it to be a “personnel discussion,” so they’ll have that deliberation in private, in executive — or closed — session.

You know what? With all this talk about “transparency,” I wonder why council members need to have that discussion in secret. It they were discussing, say, the job performance of a senior administrator and were considering terminating that individual, I get how that would qualify as an exemption under the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Selecting a City Council member, though, doesn’t qualify as a “personnel” matter in that context. They’re selecting someone who would answer to the council’s constituents. That would be about, oh, 200,000 of us who live here. Many of us pay property taxes that fund city government.

Why not open the process the rest of the way, to allow us to hear from the elected governing council how they’re deliberating? What factors are they considering as they ponder this important decision?

One of the aspects of the Texas Open Meetings Act that few of us ever seem to grasp is that the act doesn’t require governing bodies to convene these executive sessions. It only empowers them to do so. Some governing boards are more apt to convene executive sessions than others.

If the Amarillo City Council now comprises a majority of its members who got elected a year ago as agents of change, well, here’s a chance for them to demonstrate some serious change in the manner in which they decide to appoint one of its members.

Uncategorized

To the woodshed … perhaps?

2 Comments

harpole

Texas open meetings requirements are pretty strict. They allow public bodies to meet in secret only for specific reasons, with personnel discussions being one of them.

And when the body shuts the door, it keeps the public out so that its members can speak freely about the issue at hand.

Tuesday, the Amarillo City Council had a lengthy closed-door meeting. No one outside the room knows what was said when the council shut the door to talk about City Manager Jarrett Atkinson and the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board.

They went into the meeting to talk about the “status” of both — Atkinson and the AEDC board.

When the council came out, Mayor Paul Harpole announced that Atkinson’s resignation and the resignations of the AEDC board members was off the table. The city is moving forward, he said.

OK, so what the heck happened in that room?

Harpole and the rest of the council won’t say specifically. They papered over the discussion, calling it cordial, businesslike … all the things you might expect to hear. Perhaps it was all of that.

Councilman Mark Nair had called for Atkinson’s resignation on the day he took office. Councilman Randy Burkett, another council rookie, called for the AEDC board to quit.

Then they changed their minds.

Hmmm. Interesting, yes?

Since the public is left to speculate on what happened in that City Hall room, I think I’ll do a little speculating right here — about what I think should have occurred.

Harpole should have given the two brand new council members the tongue-lashing of their lives, much in the manner that President Reagan took then-Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman “to the woodshed” for steering too far off course during the early years of the Reagan administration.

We don’t know what Harpole told his council colleagues. We do know, though, that he scolded Burkett strongly in public over Burkett’s assertion that he demanded Assistant City Manager Vicki Covey’s resignation when Covey’s retirement already had been in the works. Burkett wasn’t present to hear Harpole’s harsh words, although I’m quite certain he heard of them soon afterward.

It’s also instructive that Burkett left the Tuesday meeting quickly and fended off media attempt to question him as he exited the building.

So, all the principals say they’re happy with the way the direction the city is headed. Councilman Nair spoke of the need to pull together.

Good for all of you — and especially to Mayor Harpole, if he did what I hope he did behind closed doors.

local news

Keep it in the open, City Council

The Amarillo City Council agenda for Tuesday has been posted.

It’s in this link:

http://amarillo.gov/departments/citymgr/2015/agenda/agenda_07_07_2015_17_30_00.pdf

As you scan it you’ll notice that the council plans to discuss City Manager Jarrett Atkinson’s “status” and requests for his resignation. The item is posted as part of its open session. Not in closed, or executive session, which the Texas Open Meetings Act allows.

Here’s what I think ought to happen.

I believe the council should keep the item out there, to be discussed in full public view — if Atkinson agrees.

Why? Well, the call for his resignation came a few days ago in fairly dramatic fashion — and it was done publicly. The council’s newest member, Mark Nair, had taken his oath that day. Then he said, in public, that Atkinson should resign.

Nair is an agent of change, according to the election results for Place 4. So, by golly, he wants change and he wants it sooner rather than later.

So, why not allow a full public airing of the gripes against the city manager? State law allows it. It doesn’t require governmental bodies to meet in private; it merely allows them to do so. “Personnel” is one of those items that can be discussed in secret.

Nair and fellow new council members Elisha Demerson and Randy Burkett all seem to think a change at the top of the city administration is in order.

Why? Let’s hear it, gentlemen.

You’ve called for “transparency.” Here’s your chance to deliver the goods.

Oh, and be sure to let the city manager answer whatever assertions you intend to make point by point.