Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 10, 2009
City Reporter Tries to Bust Into Closed Meeting, Gets Asked to Leave
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
This post has been updated.
Seattle Times reporter Emily Heffter writes that when she tried to enter a closed meeting between city council members yesterday, she was "physically dragged ... away from it by the strap of her bag" by Tom von Bronkhorst, an aide to Council Member Jean Godden.
Folks familiar with the meeting say that it took place in Godden's office; that von Bronkhorst actually looped his finger under the strap of Heffter's purse and gestured that she had to leave; and that the meeting did not constitute a quorum of the city council, which would trigger the Open Meetings Act. (For context, council offices have a large open area divided into several cubicles for staffers in the front and a private office for the council member in the back. Reporters are allowed to roam into and out of council staffers' offices at will, but must be invited into the back office by the council member). As Council Member Tim Burgess noted in Heffter's story, the council, council staffers, representatives of the mayor's office, and constituents meet behind closed doors all the time. If every single phone call, policy discussion, legislation-drafting session, and negotiation had to be conducted in public, the business of government would grind to a halt.
Perhaps the fact that Heffter doesn't appear aware of this is a symptom the Seattle Times' longstanding policy of routinely rotating reporters in and out of the city hall reporting spot. Perhaps it's willful naivete in the service of a "gotcha" story. But any longtime city hall reporter will tell you that council members' doors are often closed for meetings, briefings, and other discussions, and you don't just barge in. Legislation gets drafted in private negotiations every single week; the subsequent committee discussions invariably take place after everyone has seen the legislation, passed around their amendments, and determined their positions.
I'm not saying council members should skirt open meetings law, or that they couldn't have handled this situation better. But to act as though council members should hold every single conversation about policy in public is disingenuous. It may make for good outraged editorials, but any honest city hall reporter knows it's counterfactual and unrealistic.
1
It will be interesting to see/hear the full details. While I support open meetings, in general, I do think that we often go overboard in our efforts to achieve unrealistic and often counter productive goals.
Everyone needs space to work out ideas without having every single comment in the public record. We have a representative democracy, and we should allow representatives some latitude to work things out before they are forced to make public statements and take public actions. It is inefficient to do otherwise.
Keep us posted, Erica.
Everyone needs space to work out ideas without having every single comment in the public record. We have a representative democracy, and we should allow representatives some latitude to work things out before they are forced to make public statements and take public actions. It is inefficient to do otherwise.
Keep us posted, Erica.
2
Watching Tom Carr - who has misused and advocated for the misuse of attorney-client privilege to exempt a shit ton of stuff from open records/meetings law - grandstand in an election year about this is quite a hoot.
Mind you, I'm not in favor of holding a bunch of closed door meetings with less than a quorum of the Council to skirt the open meetings law, but in the end it is most likely to be found totally legal.
I'll await Mr. von Bronkhurst's explanation for his actions, but they seem absolutely outrageous to me on their face. I have a hard time imagining that anything they were discussing necessitated the immediate physical removal of a reporter, let alone by a legislative assistant to a Councilmember.
Mind you, I'm not in favor of holding a bunch of closed door meetings with less than a quorum of the Council to skirt the open meetings law, but in the end it is most likely to be found totally legal.
I'll await Mr. von Bronkhurst's explanation for his actions, but they seem absolutely outrageous to me on their face. I have a hard time imagining that anything they were discussing necessitated the immediate physical removal of a reporter, let alone by a legislative assistant to a Councilmember.
3
...that being said...if these meetings were specifically crafted to skirt the public meetings notice, if they specifically limit the number of participants per meeting and set multiple meetings to get around having a quorum at any one meeting, then that's a problem.
4
I am outraged that the City Council is permitted to meet at all, in any place, for any reason, public or no.
5
If they had too many council members in such a meeting, then this sounds like grounds for a civil suit with massive financial penalties to me ...
7
Subjecting every move the council makes to public supervision is micromanagement to the extreme. It's only a matter of time before someone runs an initiative to plant bugs in their offices, cars, and homes.
There are plenty of opportunities to scrutinize, critique, influence, and respond to the decisions the council makes, and if we're dissatified with their performance, we can fire them in the next election. In the meantime, let them do the job that we elected (and pay for) them to do.
P.S. I will not miss The Seattle Times when they finally go out of business.
There are plenty of opportunities to scrutinize, critique, influence, and respond to the decisions the council makes, and if we're dissatified with their performance, we can fire them in the next election. In the meantime, let them do the job that we elected (and pay for) them to do.
P.S. I will not miss The Seattle Times when they finally go out of business.
8
@2: "I have a hard time imagining that anything they were discussing necessitated the immediate physical removal of a reporter"
Whether it was absolutely necessary isn't the point. Council members should have the right to meet in private without random people (reporters, homeless guy covered in his own vomit, PETA) barging in the door.
Whether it was absolutely necessary isn't the point. Council members should have the right to meet in private without random people (reporters, homeless guy covered in his own vomit, PETA) barging in the door.
10
Erica, I don't think that the piece suggests in any way at all that every meeting should be held in public. Can you provide a quote from the story that supports your contention that this is Hefner's thesis?
12
We elected and pay them to do their best, yeah, but how is it that an effort to open more meetings to public scrutiny gets accompanied by a council aide physically removing a member of the press? Papa said there's no smoke without fire.
And I give not a fuck what kind of council meeting it was - how did a council staffer get to where it was cool to yank a woman's handbag to move her? Did the electeds present ask him to, or just stand by while he took manly initiative? The aide's side of it interests me less than the responsible council members. 'Cos I voted for them to represent me as best they can, and this is ultra-less than I expect.
And I give not a fuck what kind of council meeting it was - how did a council staffer get to where it was cool to yank a woman's handbag to move her? Did the electeds present ask him to, or just stand by while he took manly initiative? The aide's side of it interests me less than the responsible council members. 'Cos I voted for them to represent me as best they can, and this is ultra-less than I expect.
13
Interesting update that it now says they were below the threshold.
I'd hate to have somebody follow me into the restroom and claim it had quorum just because everyone was using the facilities though.
I'd hate to have somebody follow me into the restroom and claim it had quorum just because everyone was using the facilities though.
16
Tim Burgess: "It's the ability to talk freely and debate issues without being worried about how our comments will be interpreted."
Uh, Tim, you're a PUBLIC official. If you can't speak freely in PUBLIC then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
You see, Tim, the implication here is that when you do choose to speak publicly, you're not giving us the whole story.
Uh, Tim, you're a PUBLIC official. If you can't speak freely in PUBLIC then maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
You see, Tim, the implication here is that when you do choose to speak publicly, you're not giving us the whole story.
17
Erica showing the ropes to the new kid?
I would be surprised if Erica had any insights to offer a pet rock...
I would be surprised if Erica had any insights to offer a pet rock...
18
"Perhaps the fact that Heffter doesn't appear aware of this is a symptom the Seattle Times' longstanding policy[...]" isn't a sentence. I think you must have a couple words out.
19
Thank you, ECB. That editorial was pompous. It's the Mayor's JOB to brief the Council about the budget before they get blindsided at a public meeting.
Now, I agree that the group briefings are NOT the right way to go, but not for the reason the Seattle Times' editorial gives.
Group briefings mean Councilmembers aren't as inquisitive. They don't want to look like fools in front of their peers or give away their hand, so to speak, so they generally ask some basic questions and leave it at that. However, since this was a briefing and the Mayor's office was not requesting feedback, the group briefing might just be a time saver.
Now, Ms. Heffter is going to be treated coolly by Council staff, will have less access, which means we as citizens will be negatively impacted because less people will want to be a source for her and he stories will suffer. The Council staffer blew it by touching the reporter, which clearly was the peg for the story. What a mess.
Now, I agree that the group briefings are NOT the right way to go, but not for the reason the Seattle Times' editorial gives.
Group briefings mean Councilmembers aren't as inquisitive. They don't want to look like fools in front of their peers or give away their hand, so to speak, so they generally ask some basic questions and leave it at that. However, since this was a briefing and the Mayor's office was not requesting feedback, the group briefing might just be a time saver.
Now, Ms. Heffter is going to be treated coolly by Council staff, will have less access, which means we as citizens will be negatively impacted because less people will want to be a source for her and he stories will suffer. The Council staffer blew it by touching the reporter, which clearly was the peg for the story. What a mess.
21
Erica, you're acting more like Joel Connelly by the day. I'm generally a fan, but ... WTF! Godden very clearly constructed these meetings to skirt the open-meetings law. And if any council staffer so much as laid a finger on you? Get real.
22
@5 and 6,
Wrong actually - the penalties would paid by us taxpayers (not elected officials - even if they knowingly flaunted the law), and while they were increased somewhat by the contentious State Supreme Court ruling in the Yousoufian case, they still aren't particularly significant (especially for a one time incident). I certainly don't regard that as a good thing, mind you.
@8,
Public employees have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS laying their hands on anyone under the circumstances described - even just to pull their purse strap to get them out of a meeting.
Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
Wrong actually - the penalties would paid by us taxpayers (not elected officials - even if they knowingly flaunted the law), and while they were increased somewhat by the contentious State Supreme Court ruling in the Yousoufian case, they still aren't particularly significant (especially for a one time incident). I certainly don't regard that as a good thing, mind you.
@8,
Public employees have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS laying their hands on anyone under the circumstances described - even just to pull their purse strap to get them out of a meeting.
Zero. Zip. Nada. None.
23
Updated with off-the-record government info now. Whew. So now he just hooked her strap with his finger. Much classier.
But... I still admire her barging in. State law says x number of members present requires a meeting to be public, but it's "well-known" to ECB and other veterans that the members, mayor and staff plan meetings to be sure fewer than x are present to keep the public out. Further, some of these workaround meetings are held in the sacred back office, which no reporter may enter without leave.
I get that reporters have to curry favor with overworked council staff to keep the selected access going, but it's still refreshing to see a reporter subverting the rules of the game everyone else seems so proud to know.
But... I still admire her barging in. State law says x number of members present requires a meeting to be public, but it's "well-known" to ECB and other veterans that the members, mayor and staff plan meetings to be sure fewer than x are present to keep the public out. Further, some of these workaround meetings are held in the sacred back office, which no reporter may enter without leave.
I get that reporters have to curry favor with overworked council staff to keep the selected access going, but it's still refreshing to see a reporter subverting the rules of the game everyone else seems so proud to know.
24
@3 is right.
@22 is wrong. Yousoufian was a Public Records Act case. At issue here is the Open Public Meetings Act, which does have penalties that elected officials pay personally.
@22 is wrong. Yousoufian was a Public Records Act case. At issue here is the Open Public Meetings Act, which does have penalties that elected officials pay personally.
26
@24,
I stand corrected - but I don't think the statutory civil penalty of $100 (about one tenth of one percent of their starting salary) is going to have any of our elected officials shaking in their boots. Moreover, this fee only applies if an action is taken at said meeting.
I stand corrected - but I don't think the statutory civil penalty of $100 (about one tenth of one percent of their starting salary) is going to have any of our elected officials shaking in their boots. Moreover, this fee only applies if an action is taken at said meeting.
27
Wow, it's always amazing to me just how ignorant people who comment on this are especially when they were not present and don't know the facts, and need a Civics 101 lesson. Plus ECB is just jealous that someone else got the story and not her, isn't that right Ms. Shoplifter? ECB you suck at shoplifting and suck at being a journalist too!!
28
Can you imagine the outraged post we'd see if a public official so much as laid a finger on ECB?
Erica, you're being phony and disingenuous here.
Erica, you're being phony and disingenuous here.
30
Why does everyone keep saying these were briefings only? As a citizen I've worked with groups trying to impact decisions around city budget cuts to human services and we all know that what they are trying to do is create a balancing package. (and Erica as the veteran city hall reporter should know too) They basically do this so the Mayor and Council can agree on what gets cut so they don't have to duke it out in public. I don't know if it's illegal because they say that a quorum doesn't meet, but it sure makes it hard for advocates to lobby for changes to the budget when a proposal becomes public, because there's already been an agreement struck by the Mayor and a block of Councilmembers.
31
Hey Erica, can you tag this post with "media" as well as "city?" Some of us filter Slog posts at work by reading only those tagged with certain things.
-media pro
-media pro
32
So, by giving full authority to "Folks familiar with the meeting" (meaning the City Hall folks you cover and suck up to) you certainly deserver the title of today's "Stupid Fucking Credulous Hack of the Day."
33
Dept. of Irony dept:
This link, to the Council's homepage, is on the front page of the City's website as of 2:30 today:
http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetai…
It goes to this:
Council News Release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: City Council To Convene Open Government Committee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
2/25/2009 3:22:00 PM FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phyllis Shulman, Conlin Office, (206) 684-8805
Kimberly Reason (206) 684-8159
Council President Richard Conlin
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Sally Clark
Councilmember Nick Licata
CITY COUNCIL TO CONVENE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Committee will focus on improving access to public information, and increasing communication between Councilmembers and citizens to inform Council decision-making
SEATTLE - On Friday, February 27 at 9:30 a.m., the Seattle City Council will convene a new committee to improve communication between the Council and its constituents. Led by Council President Richard Conlin, the Open Government Committee will explore and recommend ways to improve citizens’ access to public documents and seek more diverse community input on issues affecting the City in advance of legislative action.
Councilmembers Bruce Harrell, Sally Clark and Nick Licata will serve on the committee, with Harrell serving as Vice Chair. Potential work plan items include:
A review of Legislative Department and City procedures for responding to public records requests, and considering legislation that requires every Department to have certain rules for responding to public disclosure requests.
Creating a new customer service system and overseeing the investigation of tools and costs for citizen polling, city services and legislative information that can be customized, and providing access to additional informational audio and video services.
Soliciting and considering community suggestions to increase the level of citizen engagement in local government.
“We are very pleased to launch this committee,” said Council President Richard Conlin. “My hope is that we will improve the ease with which constituents can engage in the democratic process, resulting in greater input from a broader and more diverse group of citizens. Ultimately, this will strengthen local government by providing the Council with a more complete understanding of the will of the people.”
Councilmember Harrell says, “We have the opportunity to take advantage of technology to create user-friendly ways to communicate with our citizens and improve access. The first step in this process is to make online City services simple and easy to use by implementing a Single Sign-On system. A Single-Sign-On system allows users the ability to log in once and securely access online services. Implementing this feature will save the City money by way of resource consolidation.”
In addition to the February 27 meeting, the Open Government Committee will meet on March 20, April 17, May 1 and June 5. All meetings are open to the public and will take place from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. at Seattle City Hall in Council Chambers at 600 4th Avenue.
Archives of previous meetings, news releases and copies of legislation are available on the Council’s website at www.seattle.gov/council . Council meetings are cablecast live on Seattle Channel 21 and Webcast live at www.seattlechannel.org/viewer_live.asp . Questions about Council news releases can be directed to Kimberly Reason, Council Communications, at 206-684-8159, or by e-mail at kimberly.reason@seattle.gov .
-30-
More...
This link, to the Council's homepage, is on the front page of the City's website as of 2:30 today:
http://www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetai…
It goes to this:
Council News Release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: City Council To Convene Open Government Committee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
2/25/2009 3:22:00 PM FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phyllis Shulman, Conlin Office, (206) 684-8805
Kimberly Reason (206) 684-8159
Council President Richard Conlin
Councilmember Bruce Harrell
Councilmember Sally Clark
Councilmember Nick Licata
CITY COUNCIL TO CONVENE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Committee will focus on improving access to public information, and increasing communication between Councilmembers and citizens to inform Council decision-making
SEATTLE - On Friday, February 27 at 9:30 a.m., the Seattle City Council will convene a new committee to improve communication between the Council and its constituents. Led by Council President Richard Conlin, the Open Government Committee will explore and recommend ways to improve citizens’ access to public documents and seek more diverse community input on issues affecting the City in advance of legislative action.
Councilmembers Bruce Harrell, Sally Clark and Nick Licata will serve on the committee, with Harrell serving as Vice Chair. Potential work plan items include:
A review of Legislative Department and City procedures for responding to public records requests, and considering legislation that requires every Department to have certain rules for responding to public disclosure requests.
Creating a new customer service system and overseeing the investigation of tools and costs for citizen polling, city services and legislative information that can be customized, and providing access to additional informational audio and video services.
Soliciting and considering community suggestions to increase the level of citizen engagement in local government.
“We are very pleased to launch this committee,” said Council President Richard Conlin. “My hope is that we will improve the ease with which constituents can engage in the democratic process, resulting in greater input from a broader and more diverse group of citizens. Ultimately, this will strengthen local government by providing the Council with a more complete understanding of the will of the people.”
Councilmember Harrell says, “We have the opportunity to take advantage of technology to create user-friendly ways to communicate with our citizens and improve access. The first step in this process is to make online City services simple and easy to use by implementing a Single Sign-On system. A Single-Sign-On system allows users the ability to log in once and securely access online services. Implementing this feature will save the City money by way of resource consolidation.”
In addition to the February 27 meeting, the Open Government Committee will meet on March 20, April 17, May 1 and June 5. All meetings are open to the public and will take place from 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. at Seattle City Hall in Council Chambers at 600 4th Avenue.
Archives of previous meetings, news releases and copies of legislation are available on the Council’s website at www.seattle.gov/council . Council meetings are cablecast live on Seattle Channel 21 and Webcast live at www.seattlechannel.org/viewer_live.asp . Questions about Council news releases can be directed to Kimberly Reason, Council Communications, at 206-684-8159, or by e-mail at kimberly.reason@seattle.gov .
-30-
34
THE ACT (RCW 42.30), which became law in 1971, states: "All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency."
It demands deliberations of a public board or agency "be conducted openly," including "deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews (and) evaluations ... "
The act states "all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state ... exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent ... that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them."
It demands deliberations of a public board or agency "be conducted openly," including "deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews (and) evaluations ... "
The act states "all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state ... exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent ... that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them."
35
ECB is a shop-lifting, ass-kissing flak for the city council staff, her only sources after years of working as a "reporter" at city hall.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
36
The Seattle City Council has backed down ... so perhaps they decided the format was inappropriate after all.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
39
No one at the Stranger has a right to be outraged by any of this. After all, it was the Stranger who scuttled their primary endorsement of her opponent, and went with Godden during the general. Goes to show, poor judgment is the Stranger's main course when it comes to election picks.
40
Heftner seemed pretty "honest" to me. She was questioning, via her quote of Tim Ford, the way in which the letter of the law was being met while its spirit was being subverted. How does that make her naive? Instead of dismissing her argument out of hand, why not engage it honestly and recognize that you have a difference of opinion? Why not say yourself how the City should not "skirt open meetings law," or how it could have "handled this situation better"?
As for Burgess, he could be a lot more supportive than he currently is of open government. He isn't involved in the city's Open Government Committee, so he didn't show to its first meeting. He will not reply to my requests that he take action, as Chair of the City Council's Public Safety committee, to improve Seattle Police Department transparency, despite my having written an op-ed in the Seattle Times alleging that the SPD is violating city and state law. The SPD tipped him off about the results of my public disclosure request about him before it even notified me that it had received it-- and when a reporter questioned him about it, he expressed no concern about the SPD's ethics. Not saying he's a bad guy. But I haven't seen him rock the boat yet with calls for open government, so his getting Godden's back isn't totally surprising.
As for Burgess, he could be a lot more supportive than he currently is of open government. He isn't involved in the city's Open Government Committee, so he didn't show to its first meeting. He will not reply to my requests that he take action, as Chair of the City Council's Public Safety committee, to improve Seattle Police Department transparency, despite my having written an op-ed in the Seattle Times alleging that the SPD is violating city and state law. The SPD tipped him off about the results of my public disclosure request about him before it even notified me that it had received it-- and when a reporter questioned him about it, he expressed no concern about the SPD's ethics. Not saying he's a bad guy. But I haven't seen him rock the boat yet with calls for open government, so his getting Godden's back isn't totally surprising.
41
Sockpuppet, We know Erica swiped a bottle of wine...and guess what? Because of your constant harping about it we no longer give fuck all. ECB should thank you for being a douche.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS