When "Private" Electronic Communication Should Be Considered Public Record

Wireless communication is nearly universal.  When should such communication be considered public record, even when the service and device are not paid for by the taxpayers?

Email addresses with the indy.gov domain name are available to all 29 City-County Councillors.  A review of the Councillor contact webpage shows, however, that only 7 Councillors use it as their suggested email contact for constituents.   Those would be lone Republican, Bob Lutz, and Democrats Zach Adamson, LeRoy Robinson, Monroe Gray, Maggie Lewis, Frank Mascari, and William Oliver.

Since the taxpayers are providing those email addresses, they are subject to open records laws.  Presumably, the personal, non-governmental email addresses used by the remaining Councillors, as well as the personal accounts of those 7, are off limits to the public.

Just when, though, should Councillor electronic communications be considered open to public perusal?

I would suggest that when an electronic or wireless device is used during a public meeting of the Council or one of its committees, then the transmissions should be considered part of the public record of that meeting.

Some Councillors use laptops, some text, some gather email through their cell phones during public meetings.  The Councillors, by the way, are elected to attend to the public's business at these meetings, and are also paid to do so.  Information conveyed to a Councillor can be personal, but it could easily be anything from testimony, to instructions from 'higher ups' on how to vote, to virtual caucus meetings held simultaneously with the in-person meeting.  Since these communications can weigh into the Councillor's voting decisions, they should be disclosable to the public as such.  That can only mean that they should be open records and comply with open meeting laws, and therefore subject to inquiry by a member of the public.

Fundamental Fridays - Melissa Thompson

This week's Fundy award for good government goes to Melissa Thompson, Clerk of the City-County Council.  Ms. Thompson's merit for this award is her dedication to producing records when requested by a member of the public.

Some offices in City government, most notably the Mayor's office and the Office of Corporation Counsel, shred the intent of the open records laws daily, only clinging to the minimum legal requirements under state law while deliberately delaying and setting up unspoken requirements for getting documents - like asking twice.   Luckily, not everyone in City Hall handles requests this way.

Even if all City departments and agencies were vigorous in allowing access to public records, Ms. Thompson would stand out.  She fulfills requests quickly; nearly all of mine have been within the day the request was made.  She takes time out to elaborate on how to navigate some otherwise arcane Council jargon.  And she delivers it all in a highly professional manner.

Clerk of the Council is a political appointment, so Ms. Thompson's days on staff are now limited.  Hopefully for the citizens of Indianapolis, her replacement will continue her strong dedication to fulfilling the spirit and letter of the open records laws.  I wish her much success in her new endeavors, and thank her for her valuable stewardship of the Council Office.

The Right Of Public Comment Debated At City-County Council

On Monday night the content of Proposal 210 was not the issue.  The issue was how the Councillors in charge chose to shut down public comment on it.  And this time, Democrats spoke up plainly and in numbers to challenge the ban.

Paul Ogden blogged about this episode of the Council meeting over at Ogden On Politics (see "Republican Councilors Vote to Oppose Public Comment and Open Government") yesterday.

The focal point of this whole thing was the appointment of one Richard Kraft to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  At the committee meeting, Chairwoman Janice McHenry, announced that there would be no public comment taken.  Furthermore, she cited the fact that Council rules leave the decision on whether there will or will not be any public testimony up to the discretion of the Chair (see "Public Input Sacrificed For The Convenience Of Elected Officials").  To make matters just a little bit worse, the public was also barred from obtaining a copy of Mr. Kraft's bio before the meeting started.

When Prop 210 was brought forth for full Council consideration Monday night,  Councillor Angela Mansfield moved that the Council send it back to committee for the purpose of having public comment.  Councillor McHenry reiterated that it was up to the Chair and that they did not have to take public comment.  Councillor Vernon Brown stated that taking public comment was in the interest of open and transparent government.  Mansfield's motion went to a vote and failed by a vote of 12 in support and 16 against sending Prop 210 back to committee.

Those voting yea were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, B. Mahern, D. Mahern, Mansfield, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver and Sanders.

Those voting nay were Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and lone Democrat Minton-McNeill.

The discussion continued to revolve around the issue of allowing public comment in committee meetings.  Councillor Brian Mahern asked if they could take public comment right there and then and Council President Ryan Vaughn noted that it had not been posted for public comment therefore they could not.

Various Republican Councillors cast aspersions on the potential public commenters and said it made it difficult to find people who would want to serve.  Various Democratic Councillors noted that the Chair should be able to control the meeting if inappropriate comments were being made, but that the public just might have something important to add to the decision making process.  I think Councillor Monroe Gray had the most succinct take on it when he said "How do you know what someone is going to say, if you don't let them speak?"

I am glad that this dialog took place in the Council chambers.  It is high time that Councillors put their heads together to find a new public process that protects the feelings of appointees, but weighs more heavily the public's right to make their opinions known.  The BZAs and the MDC make extremely impactful decisions nearly every time they meet.  Those of us who represent the interests of our neighborhoods have been reluctant to speak publicly about the reappointment of members of these bodies whose decisions or interactions with remonstrators are poor, for fear of recrimination when we appear before those individuals again.  But, that self-imposed reluctance is falling by the wayside.

For myself, I hit a wall a couple of years ago and figured that certain members of the BZA could not possibly do any more harm to my area than they were already doing.  These members actually ended up in the majority that granted a variance to a homeowner in an area with more than 5 houses per acre, allowing them to park a semi at their house.  In the course of the hearing, one of these board members actually said to me, "if we make a decision today, will you stop coming down here?".  This particular person had snotty comments to make to remonstrators all the time.  I contacted the appointing bodies of these three individuals and noted that I would appear publicly and speak against their reappointment, should that ever happen.  Since none of these three people were reappointed, I did not appear.  But, I was fed up and certainly would have.

Sticking simply to the process - there must be a way to craft an open public process that meets multiple objectives.  But, until such a process is crafted, one would hope that all of the Councillors would put far more weight on the integrity of open government, validated by open public hearings on all matters that come before the Council, including appointments to Boards and Commissions.

After much discussion on everything but Mr. Kraft, Prop 210 went to a vote.  It passed by a vote of 17 to 11.

Those voting yea was Libertarian Coleman, Republicans Cain, Cardwell, Cockrum, Day, Freeman, Hunter, Lutz, Malone, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Rivera, Sandlin, Vaughn, and Democrats B. Mahern and D. Mahern.

Those voting nay were Democrats Bateman, Brown, Evans, Gray, Lewis, Mansfield, Minton-McNeill, Moriarty, Nytes, Oliver, and Sanders.

[edited to note that Councillor Christine Scales was not present Monday night]