What's My Beef?

I had just started to write this post when Scissors offered a very insightful comment.

I've been to a number of paid political fundraisers where the mayor and a majority of the council members were in attendance (including McCavitt) and have overhead political discussions as well as general chit-chat. Why is no one outraged by that practice rather than an informal meet and greet where no money is exchanged ?

Good question. First off, I concede the spirit of the open meeting law is bent now and again in the name of expedience, convenience and well, laziness. Public officials are human. It happens. I know. It doesn't make them dishonest or bad public officials.

But here's my beef. Access.

I, as a taxpayer and voter, had every right to attend that fundraiser you mention. I just needed to excercise my free speech by forking over the entrance fee (or sneak in through a back doors.) Once inside I had access to anyone there. The only thing keeping me out of the gathering would be my own reluctance to kick in cash. The only barrier to my participating in those conversations would be my sense of propriety or manners.

But in the case of tomorrow night's meeting my right to participate will forcibly taken away from me by the closing of an office door. I have no recourse. No way to access this meeting of a public body.

That shouldn't happen.

There has been a lot of amateur interpretation of the open meeting law. Back in the day at the Daily News, I would have placed a call to Bob Bender at the District Attorney's office. I probably still could although I'm not sure Bob Bender is there any more. I'm sure there is an equivalent.

But let me add my own "I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV" opinion to the law, which you can read here.

Here's the so-called exception:

This section shall not apply to any chance meeting, or a social meeting at which matters relating to official business are discussed so long as no final agreement is reached. No chance meeting or social meeting shall be used in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this section to discuss or act upon a matter over which the governmental body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

Well, this isn't a chance meeting. But the fund-raising Scissors mentions certainly could fit that description.

In this case, the mayor is inviting the City Council and only the City Council to this meeting. So we have to look at the "social meeting at which matters relating to official business are discussed so long as no final agreement is reached."

Quite simply, this isn't a social meeting. It's a business call. Suggesting that they'll only talk about baseball and grandchildren doesn't turn a planned meeting between the city's largest landowner and the city's political powers into a back yard BBQ or a chamber of commerce cocktail reception. As a member of the public I feel the public has the right to hear their conversations.

There are simple solutions. I don't see a legitimate reason why the council couldn't meet-and-greet in the same room as the regular folks. At least I, as voter and taxpayer, would have the option of arriving early and listening in or not.

Or, at the very least, why can't the door to the private office be left open for any interested member of the public to participate.

I'll stress this point again. I don't think anyone is being dishonest here. I truly believe the Mayor simply wants to put the influential parties together. And I understand why the councilors want to get to know these folks. I get it. (I don't, however, feel doing otherwise would be "impolite.")

I just don't think we can take intentions into account when it comes to enforcing open meeting laws and ensuring open government.

.