Open Government - The Next Step

In today's information age, citizens are demanding more access to local government than ever before. Despite good intentions, government agencies can fall behind the technological curve and thus fall short of meeting these requests. Technology to provide public access has become abundantly available at extremely low costs and now is the time for local government to rethink its strategy and provide more information than ever before.

Currently the city of Fort Wayne does a decent job of providing information to the citizenry. The council meetings are on cable television and the individual members are accessible as well. The new administration has also gone the extra mile by hiring a second public information officer to help the situation. Still there is much more we can do.

Recently councilman Mitch Harper has taken to podcasting the audio of the city council meetings. While this is a step in the right direction it's a step we should be able to completely skip as we look toward implementing better solutions.

Public advocacy group Fort Wayne Public 1 is requesting that the administration and the council consider forming a Public Access Board to identify new ways the city can provide information to the public. I am a strong proponent of this idea as the most efficient way to provide these services is to gather input from the public on what information is wanted and how that information should be disseminated. I feel that this board would not only help meet citizen requests, but also help the city become a national example of how local government can and should provide public access.

The following letter was sent today by Fort Wayne Public 1 to the city council, mayor and deputy mayor:

Since its inaugural meeting in December, Fort Wayne Public I has been actively espousing the principles of Open Government in the Fort Wayne community at all levels of public governance. There are a host of possible courses of changes that could be explored to further citizen interest and involvement in civic affairs through principles of open government—a goal all agree is worth pursuing and achieving.

Public I has prepared an Issue Paper including several avenues for recommended changes. Its final draft will be shared with interested parties at the City, County, Township levels of governance, as well as such public bodies as the School Boards, Library Board, and Housing Authority.

The Fort Wayne City Council could now seize the opportunity to lead an initiative to explore improvements in increasing citizen knowledge, access, and involvement in civic affairs. As a springboard for dialogue, Public I would be privileged to share the Issue Paper on this important issue.

This is a request to the Fort Wayne Common Council to form either a Public Access Board or a Public Access Advisory Committee to explore and recommend specific open government changes designed to ensure an informed and involved citizenry. This entity would consist of representation and leadership from Council members and include other public entities and public citizens.

Public I pledges cooperation in such an innovative endeavor. It is an opportunity for the City of Fort Wayne to be a model for other communities by adopting a proactive model and expressing a commitment to explore changes to further strengthen the public trust between public bodies and the citizens of the community.

We thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely:

Daniel J. Jehl, Coordinator
Fort Wayne Public I

Senator Kruse Speaks Against Referendums

Today's JG has an article from Niki Kelly about referendums and how they have become a controversial point in this legislative session. I want to point out that referendums are not an affront to representative democracy; when used properly they merely give the people a direct voice in those issues that are most critical to them. The governor gets this difference:

Daniels certainly doesn’t want Indiana to become like California, where voters sometimes have to trudge through 100 pages of ballot initiatives on numerous public policies when they cast a ballot.

“That is not a system I would recommend in Indiana. Most of those things I believe should be taken care of in the people’s house,” he said.

But Daniels believes there are some local decisions that voters should have more direct involvement in, such as building a new school or library.

Of course state Senator Dennis Kruse believes people should NOT have a say outside of the normal voting process.

“I’m a strong proponent of the republic. I do not like the referendums and don’t think we should have them,” he said. “We were elected to make decisions. To me, we are shunning our responsibility when we want to shove it off on public opinion.”

Kruse said it is “dangerous” to have the masses vote on some issues.

“Everyone can’t be informed like elected representatives are. We spend months and months on issues, talking to all the interested parties,” Kruse said. “The regular person can’t do that.”

Here we have yet another elitist telling us he's vastly more informed than us lowly citizens. And the very idea of the citizenry voting on important matters is somehow "dangerous". I mean how could we possibly know whether or not we can afford more taxes or need another school? These decisions are clearly beyond the mental capacity of us plebian lowlifes.

And yet despite all of his hollow objections Kruse still voted for referendums. Was he for them before he was against them? He's also the sponsor of a bill to ban cell phones from automobiles because he got into a wreck while fumbling with his own phone. Perhaps the voters of Auburn will wise up and send this guy packing but until then at least voters can use the referendum to protect us from out-of-touch politicians like Kruse...

Editorial on Illegal Republican Caucus

The News Sentinel had a fantastic editorial yesterday about open government and how it relates to the illegal caucus held by the Republican majority on city council. As readers know, a new public advocacy group called Fort Wayne Public 1 has filed a formal complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor regarding this caucus. The NS rightly points out our state's open door laws are lacking enforcement mechanisms but they can still be effective at keeping government open and transparent. I've posted an excerpt below but go read the whole thing:

Consider a recent controversy involving Fort Wayne City Council Republicans, who hold a 5-4 majority. They met in a “caucus” this year before a regular council meeting to discuss “recommendations” for appointing council members to certain positions. Council Republicans have been doing this for years, with little attention being paid.

But this year, council Democrats complained, and a new open-government group has filed a complaint with the public access office: When those caucusing also constitute a majority of the legislative body in question, the recommendations in the private meeting become de facto public policy decisions.

The complaint has merit. Whatever the ruling on the letter of the law, the practice certainly violates the spirit of the law.

Without the law, we wouldn't even be talking about this. With it, public awareness is raised, and public opinion can be mobilized. The practice is likely to change, with more open government being the result. Citizens will know more about how their business is being conducted.

That's not too bad for a toothless law.

The need for open government is one idea that all media can agree on...

Illegal Caucus Coverage

Fort Wayne Public 1 has now officially filed their complaint against the Republicans on city council for allegedly violating the open door law. Indiana News Center had a story about this yesterday which you can watch here. Also, in today's NS, Kathleen Quilligan covers the story:

A new citizens' watchdog group planned to file a formal complaint today with the state's public access counselor alleging Republican City Council members have violated the state's “open-door” law.

Council President Tom Didier, R-3rd District, told The News-Sentinel earlier this month the GOP met in caucus to decide which council members would be appointed to various city boards and commissions and who would be elected council president.

On Wednesday, Didier maintained the caucus was legal. He said it lasted about 30 minutes and consisted of him asking the attendees whether they had any interest in serving on such bodies as the Plan Commission. He said the caucus has been “blown out of proportion.”

“I would stand in front of a judge and put my hand on a Bible and say it: ‘We didn't do anything wrong.'”

Councilman Didier's opinion about whether or not he did anything wrong is immaterial if they did in fact violate the law. It's also quite telling that even in retrospect he doesn't see anything wrong with their actions. Deciding council business behind close doors only to have a rubber-stamped public meeting is wrong - both legally and ethically. Citizens in the information age demand open and transparent government and these types of private meetings don't live up to those demands.

Formal Compaint Filed Against Republican Councilmembers

A newly formed public advocacy group, Fort Wayne Public 1, will be filing a formal complaint with Indiana Public Access Counselor today in regards to the illegal caucuses held by the Republican members of the Fort Wayne City Council. (Full disclosure - I have been at both public meetings held by FW Public 1) The caucuses were held at councilman Didier's home before the 1st council meeting and decisions were made about who would become the council president, the committee chairs/co-chairs and who would be appointed to various boards and commissions.

You can read the full complaint but I found this part to really describe the crux of the issue:

Common sense begs this question: What good is a public meeting if this is permitted? A private caucus can be held and the decisions can be mailed out to the public and the media. What good is a public hearing or public comment period if the decisions are pre-determined and the public official member minds are already made? What good is the ODL if it can be circumvented by this procedure of meeting privately and then making the decisions official publicly as long as the official public meeting meets all the ODL technical requirements but lacks meaningful public access and dialogue by Council members on the agenda items?

The complaint also refers to a 2003 PAC ruling that can be considered advisory "precedent" for this complaint. In that case members of the Lebanon city council met before the official meeting and discussed public business. In that case the PAC ruled against the Lebanon city council:

In this case, the council was engaged in reviewing claims. This activity, at a minimum, involved the council receiving information on public business. There is no issue that a majority of the council was present in the small conference room to review claims in advance. In my opinion, this gathering of the majority of the council to review claims which the council would approve later in the evening constituted a meeting under the Open Door Law.

Let's review the facts of this case:

1. The Republicans on council met at Didier's home


2. The Republicans decided who the president, chairs/co-chairs and commission appointments would be before the official meeting - councilman Didier has admitted to this.


3. The decisions were printed in the council agenda before the official meeting. The clerk would not know to print these items unless directed by someone on council as she was not a part of the Republican caucus

The PAC should clearly rule that this was an illegal caucus and reaffirm the 2003 Lebanon decision.

City Council President Tom Didier Changes His Story on Council Attorney

Today's JG brings us coverage of the city council attorney saga. You can read the background I previously wrote about (here and here) but suffice to say the Republicans have decided to go with only one council attorney and there were accusations that this was decided during a closed Republican caucus. At the last council meeting, council President Tom Didier said the decision to choose attorney Joe Bonahoom over Phil Larmore was not discussed and the only discussions they had were to decide between going with one or two attorneys. Watch the video below:



But now in today's JG story he admits that he went much further than that:

Didier said although he told Larmore he would not be returning as an attorney, he said nothing has been officially determined, and it won’t until the council’s closed-door meeting.

Wait a minute here. That is exactly the accusation that councilman Pape levied and Didier denied. I would say that telling Larmore he won't be returning is more than "discussing the aspects of going with one attorney versus having two". Video doesn't lie. Furthermore, how could Didier tell Larmore he won't be returning if nothing had been officially determined.

Didier is using nuance by employing the word "officially". The truth is these decisions were made in advance and Didier went ahead and told Larmore before the council even had a vote. This is not how council should operate and using the excuse "this is how it's always been done" doesn't make it right...

A 2nd Public Information Officer

FortWayneNews.com has confirmed (and I have as well) that Ozzie Mitson has been hired as the city's 2nd PIO. For those that might not remember, Mitson was the campaign manager for Nelson Peters and was an integral part of John Crawford's campaign as well. It appears that mayor Henry is taking open government seriously and adding a 2nd PIO should make it much easier for citizens to get information. However I do have a couple of concerns.

First, the 2008 budget passed by the last city council only allocated money for 1 PIO (see image below) so it's unclear to me where that money is going to come from - especially in light of the City Controller's presentation on Tues night showing the city finances could be as much as $10 Million/year in the hole thanks to HB1001. Second, it's a little disconcerting that a press release was issued about the hiring of two PIOs yet nobody seems to be able to get a hold of it. I would suggest the first action the new PIOs should take is to place all the press releases in an easy-to-find place on the city website in a timely manner...


Click on the image for a larger version

Rachel Blakeman Named New Public Information Officer

Rachel Blakeman, who ran the blog Be Part of the Solution, was being considered for the PIO position within the Henry administration. Rachel frequently updated her content until a few days ago when it went dead. Now her blog has been taken down completely so obviously that was a flag that she had been offered the PIO position.

I have now confirmed that she has accepted the PIO position. I want to offer my congratulations to Rachel and say kudos to the Henry transition team for selecting what I'm sure will be a great PIO. For those that might not remember I made a post shortly after the election suggesting that Henry choose Rachel for the PIO position:

I don't think it's any big secret that there has been some frustration between citizens of this community and the current administration's public information office. While I believe Mayor Richard has done a fine job overall in running this city I definitely see this as one area that needs improvement. In order to realize this improvement the city needs a public information officer that understands marketing, traditional media and new media. I think this is an easy choice and I'd like to throw my recommendation out there.

Rachel Blakeman

Rachel was a reporter for the JG, currently works in marketing in sales and also runs a great new blog entitled Be Part of the Solution. Now Rachel has absolutely no idea that I'm writing this so I don't know what her reaction will be. However, I would encourage Rachel to send her resume to the Henry transition team and I'll definitely send my letter of recommendation as well (for what that's worth).

Again, congratulations to Rachel!

City Council to Downsize One Attorney

Councilman Tom Didier started this week's city council meeting by asking for nominations for the city council research legislative assistant and council attorneys. He also said he wanted to make it easier than last week and apologized for the "flow" of last week's meeting. Councilman Tim Pape immediately piped up and asked if those decisions had already been made via closed Republican caucus and Didier said they had not. He stated the only thing he did was to "discuss the aspects of going with one attorney versus having two". Pape then wanted to talk about the decision to go with only one council attorney and Didier said the council should go into executive (closed) session to discuss those matters.



Seeing how council attorney Joe Bonahoom was at the meeting and councilman Tom Smith nominated him before Pape's interjection, it's quite clear that the Republican councilmembers want to drop Phil Larmore as council attorney. While it's unclear to me exactly why the Republicans have chosen to do this, I have had a few different sources give me their reasons/speculation:

1. The other attorney Joe Bonahoom was doing most of the work anyway so there is no point to keep Larmore on.


2. Larmore is a good friend of Don Schmidt and that's the only reason he was chosen. Now that Schmidt is gone, Larmore is gone as well.


3. Having two attorneys causes continuity problems with the council because only one attorney is present at each meeting and so they don't both hear all the relevant information.

I have also been told that the decision to drop Larmore has already been made and the executive session (something the council has rarely used) is simply a tool for the Republican majority to cover up that fact. However, I cannot confirm that so if any of you around city hall have any information and/or evidence of that then feel free to drop me an e-mail...

Alleged Illegal GOP Caucus Didn't Happen

Allen County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Knuth reports that the Republican Party held a possibly illegal caucus at councilman Don Schmidt's house in 2007 to discuss the city's upcoming budget vote:

It has been reported to me that all the Republican members of City Council met at Don Schmidt's home to discuss the proposed budget. This would be a legal caucus....except they were joined by Council Legislative Affairs Administrator Molly McCray and one of the City Council attorneys. These folks are paid with TAXPAYER dollars and should not be considered part of a POLITICAL caucus.

Since a majority of the council was at this meeting, and since it may not be qualified as a caucus, and since they discussed the city budget, it is unclear to me if they budget we now have is legal or not.

I'm not sure who Knuth's source is but former councilman Sam Talarico has informed me that he was at no such meeting and hasn't been to Schmidt's house in five years. I also contacted Molly McCray and asked her to confirm this and she told me she has no knowledge of any such meeting taking place. I've also been told that council attorney Joe Bonahoom was not at any such meeting either. So if this meeting did take place it sounds like it was in fact a legal caucus and we have a legal budget...

Citizen Asks Public Access Counselor for Opinion on City Council Caucus

I previously reported about the contentious start for our new city council. The gist of their debate revolved around the long term practice of letting the majority decide the council president and commission representatives via party caucus instead of a open public meeting.

Last Tuesday councilman Tim Pape challenged new council President Tom Didier to end this practice and start the new era with a spirit of bipartisanship and open government. Didier not only refused, but also became angry with Pape after he said that making these decisions behind closed doors was a "poor process". Didier went on to say that they have done it that way for years and it was their right as a majority to continue the practice.

Now local resident Dan Jehl has written the Public Access Counselor and asked for her opinion regarding the legality of caucus process as it relates to selecting council positions that ultimately must be voted on by the entire counsel. You can read his request for an informal opinion below:

PAC Counselor,

These questions are hypothetical and based upon unverified newspaper articles. Please provide responses to help assist in clarifying the Open Door Law.
A public meeting was held with decisions made, including recorded voting, that fall under the purview of the Act, specifically the election of a council president and the selection of committee members of a governmental body
.
Prior to the public meeting, a private caucus was held to make these decisions. This meeting was not open to the public or media, and was limited to party caucus officials.

The agenda for the public meeting was published prior to the meeting and stated the new council president and the committee chairs and co-chairs by name and title. The actual public meeting was then held. The party majority which party held the caucus then ratified the decisions already made and publicly admitted that the decisions were already made in party caucus.

At the official public meeting, a party majority vote prevailed in the selection of the prior-meeting chosen council president. The new president then appointed the committee chairs and co-chairs. Then motions were made and votes recorded to appoint committee members. In each instance, the party majority prevailed with the prior meeting decisions thereby being made official and ratified.

With this context, here are the questions.

1. Are the Open Door Law Public Notice requirements met with use of an agenda serving as the public notice which: a)is undated as to day of posting and b)which explicitly reflects decisions made in a previously-held party caucus non-public meeting?

2. Was the party caucus meeting itself a violation of the Open Door Act with decisions made by public officials and then later made official at a public meeting?

3. Did the published agenda meet the agenda provisions of the Open Door Law given that it reflected the new President and Committee Chairs by name and title decided at the non-public party caucus meeting although the official public meeting had not yet occurred to make these names and titles official?

Thank you for your attention to these questions.

Henry Administration - Recommendation for Public Information Officer

I don't think it's any big secret that there has been some frustration between citizens of this community and the current administration's public information office. While I believe Mayor Richard has done a fine job overall in running this city I definitely see this as one area that needs improvement. In order to realize this improvement the city needs a public information officer that understands marketing, traditional media and new media. I think this is an easy choice and I'd like to throw my recommendation out there.

Rachel Blakeman

Rachel was a reporter for the JG, currently works in marketing in sales and also runs a great new blog entitled Be Part of the Solution. Now Rachel has absolutely no idea that I'm writing this so I don't know what her reaction will be. However, I would encourage Rachel to send her resume to the Henry transition team and I'll definitely send my letter of recommendation as well (for what that's worth).

Mayor Richard Still Fails Open Government Test

Mike Sylvester links to this story from Indiana News Center that says the city has refused to provide the environmental test results for the Omni Source property.

But because that land for years hosted scrap metal recycling, questions arise about whether there are environmental contamination issues that need to be exposed.

Indiana's NewsCenter requested records of soil testing that's been conducted, but the City Legal Department turned down that request.

The City cited state code suggesting that economic development commissions are exempt from disclosure requirements, during negotiations with a commercial prospect.

I am sick and tired of this administration thumbing their nose at the citizenry. One thing the next mayor MUST DO is vastly improve on Mayor Richard's woeful closed government legacy - just embrace the idea of citizen oversight and open government principles. Work with the people in the community instead of building a consensus of elitists.

As for the commission being exempt from disclosure they are technically correct but only until the negotiation is complete. What advantage does the city get from hiding this information? As soon as the negotiation is done the tests will be public anyway. They are not in competition with anyone over this property because they have an option to buy it that hasn't expired yet.

I'd like to share the fundamental statute of Indiana's Access to Public Record's law for ALL of you involved in local government - learn it, live it, love it:

IC 5-14-3-1
Public policy; construction; burden of proof for nondisclosure

Sec. 1. A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. Providing persons with the information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officials and employees, whose duty it is to provide the information.

Muncie City Council Bans Two Candidates From Future Meetings

Recently two city council candidates were banned from the Muncie city council meeting for statements made at a public hearing. Let me start by saying that this case is in no way similar the complaint I filed against the Fort Wayne City Council and City Clerk when they locked me out of a city council meeting. However, the very fact that local government officials think they can ban citizens from future meetings for something they said is a scary thought and should be a wake up call to everyone.

MUNCIE -- Two candidates for Muncie City Council have been banned from future city council meetings after one used what some perceived to be racial phrase and the other suggested tarring and feathering some current council members.

Both comments came late in Monday's City Council meeting as the men at separate times stood at a lectern in front of the council.

Jerry Fowler, who is white, addressed councilman Monte Murphy, an African American firefighter, as "black bat" when Murphy volunteered to answer Fowler's question about a firefighter retirement plan.

Fowler is an independent challenger to the District 1 seat, currently occupied by Democrat Sam Marshall.

"I've experienced this before," Murphy told The Star Press on Tuesday. "It's something you just deal with."

On Tuesday, City Council President Bill Shroyer, a Democrat, announced that Fowler and Basil Davis Sr., who suggested some members be tarred and feathered, would be banned from city council meetings for as long as Shroyer is president.

"I'm outraged at their behavior," Shroyer said.

Shroyer lost his bid for re-election in the May Democratic primary, and his last meeting will be Jan. 7.

Davis is a Republican candidate for one of three at-large City Council seats this November and is a veteran tax remonstrator who has attended hundreds of local government meetings since 1983.

City Council attorney Joe Hunter said Tuesday he would research whether Shroyer had the legal authority to keep Fowler and Davis from the meetings.

Research? Are you kidding me?!? YOU CANNOT BAN CITIZENS FROM MEETINGS! Where do these guys come up with stuff? Of course don't expect any help from the Public Access Counselor as she doesn't seem to be too interested in advocating for open government. Maybe they can bring Fort Wayne City Attorney Tim Manges on as a consultant to distort the facts for them. This is why we need advocates for open government - this blatant violation of state law cannot and should not be tolerated.

Government at all levels has not adjusted to the information age. They're used to being able to operate in semi-secrecy where only a few non-apathetic voters were there to challenge them. That day is over and if you don't like it then you had better get out of government. In the meantime I would suggest these two men in Muncie become members (as I am) of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. The more people we rally for the cause the more likely we are to make a difference...

H/T: Mitch Harper