SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock
Sedona AZ (February 16, 2015) – SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock discusses Arizona Open Meeting Law SB1435 legislation with AZ State Senator Sylvia Allen and other elected state representatives:
First let me thank you, Senator Allen, for taking time to respond to my concerns. Although I’m sure you mean well, your overview of reasons to change the existing Open Meeting Law, in my opinion, are flawed.
You overlook the increasing trend of questionable “dark money” from unnamed sources that surround the success of many of those elected. During our last Sedona election where campaign funding is made public, the supposition that special interests not only funded candidates’ campaigns but, in actuality, down and dirty politics was very much involved remains well and alive. It’s difficult for me to understand why anyone running for public office would want to in any way be associated with questionable ties to success or failure of endeavors linked to less than honorable activities.
How can you say decisions will not be made behind closed doors when admittedly the only public action being proposed is at the time a vote is taken? Even with the existing Arizona Open Meeting Law, as you have also admitted, ample private discussion already occurs among the elected of which the public realizes but obviously is not privy to.
I am aware of the stringent rules of questioning quorums at any public gathering, official or personal. And while I understand the inconvenience of that provision, it also remains true that in spite of it phone chats and/or e-mails between elected officials are generally not questioned and many decisions can be formulated indirectly by that process. Surely all of you were aware of that process prior to being elected. Why is now the time to declare: “This is cumbersome and wrong.” ?
If an elected body has already made a decision on any issue prior to taking an official vote, then what’s the point to invite the public to bear witness when clearly their input has been stifled and attendance most likely would be viewed as nothing more than a source of irritation? Why would an elected official be offended to follow rules requiring discourse between a County or City Manager in order to keep things above-board?
Open work or planning sessions whereby no action is taken is honorable and encourages public participation in addition to being respectful. All of you were voted in office by the people and to represent the will of the people. How can that be determined if you shut them out and make decisions simply because you think you know what’s best? That is not why you were elected.
Your concluding statement: “Our proposed improvements to the open meetings law will improve communication between public officials, and it keeps the public involved.” With all due respect, I adamantly disagree with this premise and it remains my opinion that any elected official who prefers to work questionably behind the scenes to enact laws may very well be doing so to serve special interests who paid to get them elected.
Respectfully,
(Ms.) Eddie S. Maddock
This bill is being misrepresented in the press.
I introduced SB 1435 to help make government better by allowing elected officials on small and mostly rural Boards and Commissions communicate with each other in everyday settings, without running afoul of the Open Meeting Law. The bill does not affect how the public and the media currently interact with their elected officials. It also does not allow elected officials to make any decisions behind closed doors. Once you start to take “Action” then the public must be involved just as it is working now. Instead, it eliminates absurd interpretations of the Law that keep those officials from adequately performing their duties.
Arizona’s Open Meeting Law is an important tool for the public, and I feel that SB 1435 brings a much needed improvement and allows for better government. I have a long history of supporting transparency and openness in government and the involvement of the public, and this bill is consistent with that effort. Just voted on a bill today that was a transparency bill.
First, let’s look at what SB 1435 doesn’t do. By changing the definition of “meeting”, we leave in place the most important part of the open meeting law that provides for notification, posting of the agenda, call to the public and posting of the minutes. The ability of the public to be at “official meetings where legal action is taken” is preserved and protected. Whenever ANY decision will be made or action taken by a public body, notice will be given and the public will participate. Nothing that provides for public participation will change. Just as you saw notification of this bill you are now involved with this issue.
As far as why SB 1435 is necessary, we need to update how elected officials are able to converse and associate with other officials. The previous definition had included anytime there is a quorum, whether it was an official meeting or not. This placed a burden upon the elected officials and stifled their speech and association.
My eyes were opened when I served as Navajo County Supervisor. Do you realize that as a supervisor I could not be in the same room with two other supervisors, whether it was at a social gathering, the elevator or even the restroom, without being subject to potential open meeting violations? If I sent one supervisor an email with a question about the budget, I could not send an email with this same question to any other supervisor, nor could the supervisor I asked the question to send the question on to any other supervisor. This stops all communication with your peers and severely limits your ability to do your job. However I could tell my County Manager who is under no restrictions of the law and he could go and ask each Supervisor. This is cumbersome and wrong.
What is important for the public is to know when any public body starts to take action that affects the citizens then they will know and be able to participate. It is impossible to take any legal action without the public knowing about it.
Arizona has one of the most stringent open meeting laws in the country. We do this so someone can’t do something unethical, immoral or criminal. But it is wrong to prejudge someone and to restrict their speech, and that makes for poor, restrictive, oppressive government. Our proposed improvements to the open meetings law will improve communication between public officials, and it keeps the public involved.
Senator Sylvia Allen
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Sylvia Allen; Carlyle Begay; Judy M. Burges; Russell Bowers; David Farnsworth; Debbie Lesko; Barbara McGuire; Lynne Pancrazi; Don Shooter; Bob Worsley; Kimberly Yee; Regina Cobb; Mark Finchem; David Livingston
Cc: dducey@azleg.gov
Subject: OPEN MEETING LAW SB1435
Importance: High
MS. EDDIE S. MADDOCK
SEDONA, AZ 86336
February 14, 2015
TO: Sponsors & Supporters of SB 1435, Open Meeting Law
Why, may I ask, are you attempting to relax open meetings mandate? All fifty states have enacted some type of legislation providing the public with a statutory right to openness in government. This was “in response to mounting public concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret ‘workshops’ and ‘study sessions;” source: Ralph M. Brown Act, 1953.
It’s unfortunate that apparently you need to be reminded that you were elected to serve the voting public and not to accommodate you the pleasure of making questionable decisions in closed meetings with the only offering to the public is a vote after issues have been decided.
This is clandestine government at its worst. The mere suggestion to display such arrogance of power in such a short time after the opening of the recent sessions is despicable.
During a time of extreme public mistrust in government functions at all levels, you have the audacity to even suggest such a thing. If you continue to move forward with this disrespectful slap in the faces of those who elected you, shame. You will not be seated in your self-imposed glory forever, but the damage you feel empowered to do will very likely take another 50, 60, 70 years to correct if, in fact, such a thing is even possible.
Please, reconsider this preposterous suggestion. We are already aware the public is not hearing everything even with the current Open Meeting Law constraints, which is part of the problem.
If anything consideration might be better directed toward reassuring the voting public that closed door, back room deals are unacceptable. Transparency should prevail. Encouraging activities contrary to that should be deemed unacceptable if public trust is to be restored and sustained.
Sincerely,
(Ms.) Eddie S. Maddock
For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
Much appreciation for this…letting us know what the rest of the media constantly ignores! Indicative of what the Republicans and Democrats think they can get away with that destroys our country. Keep the great flow of information coming. You’re one of the best online and your other writers are great. Also liked the tribute to Kayla Muhler. What a heartache.
Veronica Pappas, Phoenix
Well written, Mrs. Maddock. Thank you for the advocacy.
Thank you “Veronica Jean Pappas, Phoenix AZ” and “Rose, Arizona.” Your supportive words are very much appreciated.
Eddie Maddock
Thank you for an interesting viewpoint. At first I was inclined to agree with Ms. Allen but convinced now how small changes lead to big “deals” and I mean that play on words. I’ve forwarded this to others. Keeping tabs on our government is important and keeping them honest is a chore.
Should have been “Rose, SEDONA” (not Rose, Arizona) Sorry for the error. So much for my credibility.
Can hear my enemies shouting with glee: “Told you so. Nana, nana, na na!” ”
At least I admit it when making a mistake and offer an apology when I realize it. And I don’t think it cost taxpayers any money.:-)
E. Maddock
And so does it mean if SB1435 is approved elected officials can all congregate at social events (cocktail parties, etc.), accept tickets to sporting and entertainment events, as one collective body trip the light fantastic to any number of public and private affairs and freely be at liberty to discuss and even make decisions about anything they jolly well please? Oh, but of course it will be perfectly OK since they are being gracious enough to cast the “real” vote at a public meeting! Really?
As if there isn’t enough eyebrow raising examples we hear about almost on a daily basis. And they aren’t even asking (or wanting) public approval prior to setting the stage for free wheeling and dealing with no questions asked.
Sit in silence, voters, and allow this to happen but don’t complain after the deed is done.
In addition to the 14 e-mail addresses provided by Mrs. Maddock, the link to contact Gov. Doug Ducey which offers an opportunity to simply check whether or not you favor legislative bills or add a message of your own, is:
http://www.azgovernor.gov/governor/engage.
@ CW, AZ — They can already do that if they announce it ahead of time. For ex., at the ACC website there’s this:
Notice of Joint Appearance
According to Open Meeting Law, when 3 or more Commissioners attend a meeting or event, the public must be notified.
Notices
and then when you click on Notices you get taken to: http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Administration/Meetings/Agendas/2015/2015NoticeOfJointAppearances.asp
The AZ Open Meeting Law was lawfully gutted in Sedona when the City Council disbanded most Commissions and adopted Citizen Engagement.
Currently fifteen Citizen Engagement Work Groups and counting are active. Participants are appointed by the City staff and confirmed by no one. Work Groups meet in secret to decide City matters without hearing from the public. Public access occurs when the deal is done and the City Council gets involved and votes.
From: Judy M. Burges
Date: 2/23/2015 4:13:55 PM
To: Eddie Maddock
Subject: RE: Read: OPEN MEETING LAW SB1435
Good afternoon Mr. Maddock: Thank you for taking time to write with regard to SB1435. This bill was assigned to the government committee and the chairman held the bill. Last week was the last week to hear senate bills. This bill was not put on the agenda and is therefore dead for this session.