There have been so many abuses of the open meeting laws in Graham County over the years that new episodes seem to fall into the category of "so what else is new?"
There are a number of specific conditions that allow meetings of public bodies to be closed to the public, but the language of the law is so ambiguous that inventive public body members can find any number of exotic reasons why the public (and particularly the media) can be kept at bay.
There has been at times justification for the reluctance to discuss sensitive issues, such as the ongoing debate about the responsibility for sustaining library services across municipal boundaries, but restraining media and public access should be out of the question.
Discourse can become stunted and less than candid when there are observers on hand, and as a result the depth of discussion of issues and options can be constrained. But public officials and those who contribute to discussions at what must be regarded as public meetings have to be made to understand that disclosure and openness are important mandates of the democratic government process.
Government has an obligation to err, if it must, on the side of a well-informed public. To resort to closet discussions is not acceptable, and the public should not accept that approach under any circumstances other than those that are well-defined by applicable law.
Rudy Dalpra
Safford



Comments
4 comment(s)AFTER-THE-FACT wrote on Jul 29, 2009 9:04 AM:
wow wrote on Jul 2, 2009 3:53 PM:
JoePublic wrote on Jul 2, 2009 1:20 PM:
Most sheepeople in the town gave up along time ago. Look next to you at a traffic light. Do you think that person sitting there, idling to get the signal right, cares about what happens with tax dollars or community affairs?
Go to meetings?
Ha! I'd be surprised if they even vote or even like to read...
Who can go to meetings, when they bills to pay; teach us it's all about the buck, the human soul and the nuturing of community values, ain't got a chance. "
Shaesca wrote on Jul 1, 2009 11:35 AM: