Ordinarily, I would reserve all my disgust for a solicitor and elected officials who have been behaving irresponsibly for years. But in this case, the public knew all about its officials' attitudes - and failed to do anything about it.
You know what? You get what you vote for.
Bill White points out his experience more than six years ago in April of 2000. At that time his issue was with Solicitor Al Pierce's interpretation of the Sunshine Law and Councilman Larry Stoudt's position that he'd rather cancel meetings than hold them publicly.
White then jumps ahead six years, during which time Council Committee meetings for all standing committees have been announced at workshop and business meetings as well as on the borough's web site, and concludes that voter apathy has had its consequences with the new Government Center Proposal created behind closed doors.
Considering meetings have been announced, the only reason the issue was raised regarding the "secret" meetings was because I picked up on Councilman Davis stating they met after the public meeting. It was when he stated they were in compliance with the Sunshine Law because they had four members that I questioned the announcement of the meeting and Pierce returned to his position that they did not need to be.
In short, Stoudt is not the only person on Council. The Council as it exists now is not the same as it was then, though they do have the same solicitor. The voters have changed many members as well as the Mayor, but it is the Council itself that selects the solicitor.
To blame the voters and their apathy in this instance is unfair. There was a reasonable expectation that meetings were being conducted openly and as soon as it was determined they may not have been questions were asked.
Oftentimes the media holds itself up to be a check on government, yet in this instance, while two members of the print media were in attendance at each meeting and at least one ought to have had the background provided in today's column, it was the public who picked up on the violation and has since taken action.
Disgusting? Apathetic? I don't think so. What are your thoughts? Did Bill White's article unfairly portray the situation? Nazareth's voters? The Council?
Read more about:
Sunshine Law
Government Center Proposal
Councilman Stoudt
Council
3 comments:
Bill White's a very good columnist and he is right - we wouldn't be in this mess if we made it clear that we don't want people like Stoudt serving us. And although I follow local government more closely than most, I confess I have been inattentive to what individual council members do once they're elected. I plead guilty. But I'll never make that mistake again. I could disagree with but respect a Councilperson. But I don't have any respect for a Councilperson who purposely keeps the public in dark.
It was a leading headline, no question, and I don't disagree that Bill is a good columnist (not to mention often very entertaining - Musicfest is coming up - I think its his personal version of Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest), BUT I do think its tough to put this one on apathetic voters.
There was a presentation of openness that turned out to be not as open as we thought. The optimist in me saw progress;-)
In fairness to Bill I did send him an email letting him know about the post I wrote.
Thanks again for your comments and insight.
Ross
I'm sure you were fair, and that is always evident from your writing style. But as I reflect, I think I sould have made a stink about Stoudt several years ago. I do take the Sunshine Act very seriously and it galls me that one of its worse offenders is a Councilman in the place where I live. So I do think I am guilty as charged.
Post a Comment