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.

####

20060615 KDDC Mayor Frank Johnson and Deja Vu

Mayor Frank Johnson and Deja Vu all over again

June 15^th, 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

Several folks have called this to my attention: "Frank Johnson named Senior Assistant County Attorney/Legislative Director," posted on the Carroll County Government Web site on June 13th, 2006. You can go here and read it.

I have also been reminded of an editorial by the Carroll County Times pertaining to the matter of Mayor – then Council President Johnson, holding two public positions concurrently.

I have found the editorial in my archives. The editorial was written on February 9^th, 2003 and it was entitled: “A problem of wearing many hats.”

Since the Carroll County Times does not use permalinks, I will paste the editorial, in its entirety, below.

With respect to the Mt. Airy Ethics Commission; one wonders how it is that the commission was able to make a determination as to whether or not Mayor Johnson holding two positions of public trust and profit simultaneously was an impropriety - and keep matter the confidential.

Although my ear to the ground never indicated that the information was leaked by anyone associated with the commission; it has been persistently alleged to be an open secret that nothing is confidential in Mt. Airy.

In the previous Mt. Airy town administration, it seemed that many confidential memos were alleged to have been immediately leaked to advocacy groups, the Carroll County Board of Commissioners and the press.

Deja vu seems to be the operative word in Mt. Airy government. It has been suggested in many circles, that immediately after taking office, just several weeks ago after the May 1^st, 2006 municipal election; Mt. Airy officials held an unannounced meeting with MDE officials over the status of Mt. Airy's water situation – the Friday before Memorial Day.

Although such meetings may be appropriate, if not necessary, meetings such as this were characterized in the press, among advocacy groups and in the May 1^st, 2006 election as inappropriate.

A community certainly has a right to determine for itself what meetings are to be public and not public as long as such determinations are consistent with current Maryland and municipal law.

So what has changed - except perhaps, the folks involved in the current meetings? Hmmmm?

Back in March 2006, I wrote a piece on the open meetings issue, or rather the suggestion that “secret” meetings were taking place in Mt. Airy and did not post it on my web site or run it as a column. Perhaps there is no better time to dust it off and post it.

As far as Mayor Johnson holding an appointed position in County government and being the mayor of Mt. Airy; I’m not sure that I have a problem with that as long as adequate disclosures are made and Mayor Johnson appropriately recuses himself when matters may arise in which there may be a perception of conflict.

Mayor Johnson’s sense of public service to our greater community is to be admired.

However, I believe that I read where he said that he was going to resign from his county position, if – or upon his election as mayor. I just did a quick search of my archives and I cannot find where it is that I read that information. Perhaps a kind reader may have the cite and forward it to me?

The problem appears to be one of consistency. It is a problem that frequently presents itself with legislative bodies and elected officials. It certainly has raised its ugly head in Westminster in the past year and for the past four years in Annapolis - - and now appears to be an issue in Mt. Airy.

The other challenge called to my attention in Mt Airy seems to be the matter of the “town administrator” position that has quickly been raised since the election. This issue has also been a hot potato in Westminster.

Perhaps, if a candidate for the position of mayor, has in mind that they want to hire a town administrator to do their job after they are elected, maybe they ought to disclose that to the voters before the election and let the voters decide if that is how they want their town run.

In Mt. Airy, the concept of having a town administrator run the town appeared out of nowhere immediately after the election. When folks said, hold on here, let’s talk about it, the mayor and some members of the Mt. Airy replied, what do ya mean, talk about it? We have decided that it is a good idea and now we are going to move forward.

The very same folks who suggested that this was the approach of the previous administration, are the ones leading the way. What has changed? What is different? It certainly does not meet either the optics test or the smell test and to be perfectly blunt, appears to be situational ethics.

Mayor Johnson said in a letter to the editor in the Carroll County Times, earlier today, June 15^th, 2006: “A few days ago, the Times excoriated me for asking the town council to approve a town administrator at the June council meeting rather than tabling the idea… This decision was not made behind closed doors. The proposal was on the pre-announced public agenda for the council meeting, and it was openly discussed. In fact, I answered more than a dozen specific questions. The town council took public comment on the proposal. Even if one takes umbrage at my request for a decision, this all occurred in an open meeting to which the public was not only invited, but in attendance.”

(For more background: Editorial for Thursday, June 8, 2006: “Campaign promises apparently mean nothing to the newly elected mayor and council members of Mount Airy. At Monday's council meeting, Mayor Frank Johnson refused to postpone a vote on his personal proposal to add a staff position, saying waiting to get...” Read the rest of the editorial here.)

This response, although certainly plausible for this columnist, was not acceptable for issues in the previous administration. There’s the rub. What has changed? What is different? Why were these things unacceptable in the previous administration, but perfectly fine now?

Read the rest of his letter to the editor, “Government is open in Mount Airy,” here.

Things just get curiouser and curiouser in Mt. Airy and there is no end in sight.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

For additional background:

State refuses to help in Mount Airy ethics leak investigation: “The state prosecutor's office has refused to help investigate an alleged leak of confidential information regarding a pending ethics investigation in Mount Airy, and the town's mayor said there are no plans to pursue an investigation…

_________________

Open-government mayor stops taping meeting Publish Date: 06/08/06; By Katie E. Leslie News-Post Staff: “MOUNT AIRY -- Minutes into Monday's public hearing about a new downtown zoning classification, Mount Airy Town Council Secretary Peter Helt realized the meeting was not being recorded.

When he asked newly elected Mayor Frank Johnson why, Mr. Johnson said he made the decision to stop taping after a conversation with town attorney Lynn Board, who was hired by the council following Mr. Johnson's inauguration.

Mr. Helt appeared stunned….”

Read the rest here.

_________________

Mt. Airy council resumes taping, Jun. 9, 2006: “After a two-week hiatus the Mount Airy Town Council will resume tape recording council meetings. When a citizen expressed concern about an unrelated proposed ordinance during a public hearing at Monday night's meeting, councilman Peter Helt asked why...” Read the rest here.

_________________

“Two public hearings not taped” Thursday, June 8, 2006 by Carolynne Fitzpatrick, Gazette Staff Writer “Mayor decides not to record hearings; reverses decision after realizing it violated town code:” “The public will not have a chance to review the tapes of two hearings that took place on Monday, after Mayor Frank Johnson decided not to continue taping public meetings — a decision that was revoked after council members discussed it….” Read more here.

_________________

Carroll County Times Editorial for Feb. 9, 2003

A problem of wearing many hats

Mount Airy Town Councilman Frank Johnson has been wearing a lot of different hats lately, but the time has come for him to step back and make some realistic decisions about where he believes he can do the most good.

The councilman was instrumental in rallying support and bringing together a Council of Governments in Carroll at a time when communication between the county office building and Carroll's municipalities was sorely lacking. He remains a vocal advocate and is actively involved as the organization gets up and running.

Johnson also took a job as assistant to County Commissioner Julia Walsh Gouge. And while he and others have said there is nothing legally wrong with collecting paychecks from both the Town of Mount Airy and the county, there likely is an ethical issue involved.

That issue is compounded by Johnson's other involvement in Mount Airy, where he serves as zoning administrator and is the council's liaison to the planning commission.

At the very least, Johnson has spread himself too thin to be entirely effective in any one of the positions. And because his many positions span from Mount Airy to Carroll's municipalities to county government, that means the impact is being felt everywhere in the county.

Johnson owes it to the people of Mount Airy, owes it to the towns, cities and organizations that make up the Council of Governments and owes it to taxpayers who pay his salary as Gouge's assistant to step back from some of these responsibilities.

He must assess where he believes he can be most effective, and then concentrate on those areas.

Wanting to help out in as many different ways as possible is an admirable trait, but it does no good if the person is running in so many different directions that it takes away from all of his various jobs and duties.

©Carroll County Online 2003

####