The Public’s Business Should Be Conducted Publicly

Liz Blanchard and Brian Blackden had a go of it recently. Blackden starts with an email to all the city councilors asking them about his concern regarding a police vehicle that was left open and unattended. According to Blackden's blog on Patch, Blanchard responded and also mentioned she has met with Chief Duvall since the last council meeting, when the purchase of the Bearcat was discussed.  Blanchard also mentions in her email reply to Blackden, that she discussed a constituent concern with the chief. 

So while I'll avoid the fray surrounding the purchase of the Bearcat, I will weigh in with my thoughts on Blanchard's meeting with the chief. I believe it was entirely appropriate for her to bring up a constituent concern (as long as she didn't direct the chief to act in a particular manner). However I would have preferred that instead of meeting privately with the chief to discuss the upcoming vote for the purchase of the Bearcat, that she bring those issues up at the September city council meeting. 

While a city councilor, like anyone in Concord can discuss issues with city employees, the fact that this is an open issue before the council suggests it should be treated differently by council members. Had Blanchard sought to speak with the chief or solicit additional information before the city council hearing there would be no reason for concern. But because the public hearing has concluded and the council is waiting until their next scheduled meeting to discuss and vote on this issue it is important  that all discussions remain public.

Think of it this way; if the proposed purchase of the Bearcat had not been tabled for the next meeting but instead the council had taken a short break between public testimony and when they would discuss and vote on it, would it have been appropriate to have a private discussion with the chief. 

So while I believe Blanchard's intentions were to gather information to help her make a well informed decision, it is the timing of the conversation that is of concern. While Blanchard was able to get additional information from the chief, that information should be part of the public record. Other councilors should have the opportunity to weigh in with their questions about information the chief presented to Blanchard, that may not have been presented at the August city council meeting.    

Ideally the questions Blanchard posed to the chief should have been asked after the chief testified at the August city council meeting. This would have  given councilors  and the public an opportunity to weigh in on that conversation.

I know Liz and have had numerous conversations with her. I don't believe she was intentionally trying to hide anything from the public. I believe (as she stated in her email to Blackden) that she was only looking to answer questions she had in order to be sure she fully understood the issues surrounding the vote to approve funds for the purchase of the Bearcat. 

But that's not good enough. All too often we see city council business and city business conducted out of the public's view, behind closed doors. Regardless of intent, it is imperative that the public's business be conducted openly. 

All too often our Mayor floats trial balloons amongst a select group of councilors before it is aired at a city council meeting. And all too often those trial balloons become policy. So are those conversations informational or is there pressure being applied to set policy or direct the outcome of a vote. The problem is we’ll never know because it occurred in private. 

Our city manager form of government already makes it difficult to keep track of city business. Our city councilors shouldn't make it more difficult for us to follow how and why the city pursues its policies. 

So while I believe there was no ill intent when Blanchard met with the chief, it was still ill advised. The city council has the obligation to conduct the city's business openly. Sometimes doing so can be cumbersome and timely, but that is the price we should all be willing to pay if we want a government by consensus and not edict.