Serving the public and working in public go hand in hand in doing what’s best for constitutents.
Doing the public’s business in public is not only a good idea, but a requirement of the State’s Open Door Law and the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.
Everything is not clear-cut, however, when it comes to following Indiana’s Open Door Law.
For example, committees appointed by the president of the Columbus Redevelopment Commission must meet in public. However, constituent committees or subcommittees — appointed by a redevelopment staff person to gather information and ideas from stakeholders — are not covered by the Open Door Law. That means this second type of committee can conduct business in private, where contributors have the ability to talk candidly in the process of vetting significant community proposals. For these groups’ suggestions to materialize, however, recommendations are sent to the redevelopment commission for consideration in public.
The process is somewhat complicated, and it’s no wonder there’s confusion.
The city and its redevelopment commission in particular have struggled with differences in the rules regarding these two types of bodies. Because of challenges by several local residents, Redevelopment Commission President Sarah Cannon — with strong input from Mayor Jim Lienhoop — on Aug. 20 disbanded three redevelopment subcommittees that had been meeting on the State Street Revitalization Project, upcoming changes in train traffic through Columbus and the Columbus Riverfront proposal.
The decision to disband the three Columbus Redevelopment subcommittees may have seemed abrupt, but Lienhoop explained that the work of these groups was largely done — and disbanding them gave the city more time to grasp and follow the state’s Open Door Law.
Some government-watchers may perceive that the city isn’t willing to be transparent, additionally because there are legal ways for small groups of elected officials to meet and talk about ideas — as long as the number of them in the room doesn’t reflect a quorum. The Lienhoop administration has been doing this as it briefs city council members on budget matters and other ideas being developed for consideration.
While decisions are ultimately voted on in public, some of the deliberating appears to be occurring in these legal, small-group, private gatherings.
That’s when the letter of the law and the spirit of the law sometimes clash.
Paper documents are also a matter of public interest.
The city also has received many Freedom of Information Act requests about redevelopment commission activities. Such requests are the right of residents who wish to be better informed about local government and to use the information to guide their decisions — including for whom to vote.
Fulfilling the requests can be time consuming and even at times a burden, but that’s part of the job public servants sign on for.
Residents have a right to see and hear how local government functions, and how elected and appointed members of government bodies arrive at decisions.
The private, small-group meetings — while legal — walk a fine line on transparency. When all of the questions and discussions by elected council members are dealt with behind closed doors, votes on agenda items that come up in public with little or no discussion fail to give the public a complete picture of the decision-making process.
It’s important for elected officials in Columbus to serve as transparently as possible. If nearly all votes on important matters are made with no public discussion, the public is not being served.
The upcoming months will be an important time as observers watch how Columbus governs. Public trust is on the line, and that’s just as important or more important than any individual idea that comes before our elected leaders.
