Last week, a group of City Hall reporters demanded access to a private budget briefing Mayor Nutter gave to City Council. Reporters argued that the Pa. Sunshine Act, which makes it illegal for elected officials to deliberate in private, gave them the right to be present at the meeting. Nutter eventually allowed the reporters to attend the briefing, but not before making clear that he believed their interpretation of the Sunshine Law was incorrect.
This incident has sparked a lot of discussion and comment on various blogs that cover politics. Chris Brennan posted a great summary of what happened on Clout. Brennan ends with a quote from a source who believes reporters should have access to these types of meetings:
Teri Henning, general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, had a different take [than Nutter]. She said the attendance and participation of Council members added up to deliberation under the state law since they will one day have to vote on the city's budget. "The intent of the Sunshine Act is to allow the public to observe the discussions and deliberations leading up to a decision," Henning said.
Heard in the Hall also had a post on the subject, but the Inquirer blog seemed to be a little more sympathetic to Nutter's position. Here is the graph that provides the Administration's viewpoint:
Nutter administration officials are plainly angry about the incident. They say that the administration has so far been remarkably open and transparent. That is absolutely true. Reporters' questions are answered promptly. Facts and figures that in past administration were difficult to obtain without filing an official and time consuming right to know request are now handed over with little to no fuss. And Nutter and his senior staff remain remarkably accessible to the press.
Over at Young Philly Politics, City Councilman Wilson Goode wrote his own defense of holding closed door meetings. For him, the main sticking point is the difference between a briefing and a deliberation:
15 of 17 members accepted an invitation from the Mayor to receive a briefing on new budgetary issues.
There were definitely enough members for a quorum ... but a quorum for what? It's against the law for a quorum to deliberate in private. That's not what we were invited to do and that's not what happened.
And because the media was present ... they can attest to what happened ... as opposed to what they thought was going to happen.
I received a letter from the Mayor asking me to attend a private briefing. I went - as did 14 other councilmembers. If 7 others had shown up at 2:30 - and then a different 7 at 3:30 after the first 7 had left- then it's OK for me to be there?
Yes. And it was OK with 14 other members in the room as long as there is no private deliberation.
Am I saying just trust us? No.
I'm saying we didn't break the law just because you don't trust us.
That's profiling. :)
I am not a lawyer. I have no idea if the meeting held last week was a violation of the Sunshine Act. I do know that it looks bad for the Nutter Administration to even try kick reporters out of meetings. After all, this is the candidate who campaigned on restoring accountability and transparency to City Hall. Still I can't help but point out that the accounts of the meeting published the next day did not really reveal anything that we didn't know already-- namely that revenues are lower than expected due to the struggling economy.
For me, the real issue is how can the public be involved in the budget negotiations now that the public hearings have ended. The next month or so will be dominated by behind the scenes wrangling as Council members try to squeeze every dollar possible out of the budget. How can the public know about these discussions and have some involvement in the decisions that are made?
Comments (3)
I agree that the meeting doesn't look good for the Nutter administration. However, one thing that jumped out at me the next day was the mention of union negotiations. I wonder if the secrecy was in order to not tip the administration's hand too early on what they were going to say during those negotiations. If that's the case, I'm kind of torn between the public's right to know and the strategic advantage the secrecy would offer those who presumably are trying to keep our best interests in mind in negotiation labor contracts -- which brings us back to whether or not our elected officials really have our best interests in mind.
As Councilman Goode said, a lot comes down to trust which, unfortunately, many of us don't have in our government (and with good reason).
Posted by Goofy | May 7, 2008 1:18 PM
So what you're suggesting is that there might be a little more to Nutter's union negotiation strategy than his "show them the money" budget address would suggest.
You could be on to something. These are going to be some interesting negotiations. I wouldn't be surprised to see some little tiny bits of dialing back on the business tax cuts.
Posted by Dan P. | May 8, 2008 1:23 PM
Possibly. Of course, I can think of a couple council members right off the top of my head who would probably run off and blab to the unions if they were made privy to any such information.
Unfortunately, you're probably right about the business tax cuts. Personally, I'd rather see them cut back on spending somewhere (preferably council members' pet non-profits), or even cut back on wage tax reductions, before business tax reductions are scaled back.
Posted by Goofy | May 9, 2008 1:19 PM