20060615 KDDC The secret life of secret meetings

The secret life of the secretive nature of closed and open meetings

March 16^th, 2006 / June 15, 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

I first began writing this several months ago when issues over “secret meetings” arose in Mt. Airy. It is my view that suggestions that “secret” meetings were taking place were really all about folks disagreeing with the decisions of other community leaders. To charge an elected official with making decisions “secretly” is an attention grabber as this has become a “cause de jour.”

The issue is being brought up again, as some of the very same folks who recklessly engaged in character assassination and accusations that previous elected officials held “secret” meetings are now conducting themselves in a similar manner.

The issue as to whether or not “secret” meetings took place is one matter.

But more importantly, is the matter of why is it that such meetings and methodologies of approach were unacceptable before and now they are. There’s the rub.

When charges of “secret” meetings are bantered about frivolously, it trivializes what is otherwise a very serious issue and does a disservice to citizens.

Making decisions with the utmost of transparency in today’s government is a must. No longer is the paradigm of “Madisonian” representative government, where elected officials are chosen to make decisions for the folks they serve, appropriate.

In today’s’ world of 365/24/7 news and information dissemination, citizens often know as much about the complex issues as the elected officials and constituents these days, often as not, want a say in the decisions and have “hired” elected officials to implement those collective decisions.

It is called “Jeffersonian participatory government” and this columnist happens to feel that it is a better form of government.

Ultimately, as I will touch upon further down in this piece, the hypocrisy of the folks making the claims of “secret” meetings is rancid. The very folks repeating the accusation as often as possible, in an attempt to “make” the charges appear to be true, are smart enough to file a complaint with the “Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.”

Nevertheless, all of this has a deleterious affect on the quality of government.

The manner in which public officials are treated in today’s slash-and-burn, win at any costs public dialogue continues to fathom new depths.

Why would anyone want to do the job? How many, otherwise capable and competent community leaders, have said to friends, family and colleagues – “you have to be nuts to be an elected official these days.”

If, we as a collective society continue to treat well meaning folks, who leave the comfortable cocoon of their private lives, to take the office of a locally elected official at, perhaps, 75 cents per hour, and all the abuse you can stand; then we are only going to have nuts seek the positions.

Instead of a conversation about what is in the best interests of the greater number of citizens and what can bring us together, the discourse has deteriorated into a series of reactionary conversations and ugly character assassinations; often involving unpleasant public hearings, uninformed, if not childish conspiracy theories, political spinelessness and personal attacks.

One of the latest in a series of personal attacks is where otherwise honorable citizens have been tried and convicted by innuendo in various local publications, for holding “secret” meetings or not bargaining with their constituencies in good faith. Simply because they may have a different approach to what they feel is the best path to the future for Carroll County.

This may work for the uninformed masses, however, the approach is being used by folks who otherwise, should know the law better and should set a better standard for public conversations.

Point of order: in the State of Maryland, a meeting is either “open” or “closed.” The terms “open meeting” or “closed meeting” are legislated terms, governed by state law.

Just as there is no such thing as being partially pregnant, there is no such thing as deliberations being held by decision-making elected or appointed officials in a “secretive nature.” Unless, that is, the term “secretive nature” is being used in an attempt to recklessly accuse persons of wrong doing, by manipulating public opinion.

In actuality, that level of conversation is really much more appropriate for an idle and often uninformed chatter in a local bar and not quite the standard of what we would like to expect from community leaders in a position to mold and shape public policy.

If indeed, the decisions were made in a “secretive nature,” the proper term for that is “illegal nature.”

If there is any question as to whether or not meetings were held inconsistent with Maryland State law, the issue can be brought before the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board. The final arbiter of such matters is the compliance board, not a columnist, politician with an axe to grind or an editorial board with an agenda. In situations where individuals disagree with a decision of the compliance board, the matter can be determined in court.

For additional information, the Web site for the Maryland Office of the Attorney general has excellent information available under “Open Government.” The web address is: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/index.htm.

Instead of suggesting that a public body has violated the law and manipulating a trial in the court of public opinion, take the matter to the Open Meetings Compliance Board Complaint and get a formal determination or otherwise, forever hold your peace.

The procedures for asking the compliance board to make a determination if there has, indeed, been a violation of the law, can be found at: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/complaint.htm.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####