To say we were shocked upon learning that local residents may
have trouble attending the city’s
”
community conversations
”
over the next year would be like calling Coyote Valley a modest
development plan or BART-to-San Jose an inexpensive transportation
upgrade.
To say we were shocked upon learning that local residents may have trouble attending the city’s “community conversations” over the next year would be like calling Coyote Valley a modest development plan or BART-to-San Jose an inexpensive transportation upgrade.
The conversations, loudly trumpeted as an effort to reach out to the community to plan city policy, have the potential to affect every citizen in Morgan Hill for a very long time. The purpose of said conversations is to chart a course for our community’s future and to solve the structural budget deficit bleeding our reserve fund. During the dialogue, city officials have said they hope to determine if residents support cuts in city services or raising local taxes to cover rising costs.
At a meeting in the Community & Cultural Center Tuesday night, the Times was not allowed attend, though we were granted interviews with participants upon its conclusion. City Manager Ed Tewes, however, said the paper may not be allowed to attend meetings held at private residences or with private groups throughout next year.
Since we have asked for no special privileges above what is afforded to a regular citizen, we can only assume that citizens also may be excluded – completely contrary to the conversations’ purpose.
Perhaps even more troubling, is Tewes’ comment to reporter Matt King that the city will only be able to contact 1,000 citizens during the meetings at best. The Times is delivered to thousands of residents twice a week – which stands to reason the Times is an appropriate vehicle to inform the community about the conversations.
We’re not asking permission to kick in the doors of local homeowners and storm their living rooms with cameras, pencils and pads in hand. We’re asking to share the dialogue with readers. We’re asking to share it with you.
The meetings are designed to engage residents and help city officials define the proper actions to take while planning our future. Holding what appears to be semi-private meetings is certainly not the way to conduct these crucial conversations.
“The challenge will be to feel out what residents believe is the appropriate level of services needed in the community. We will reach out to them and include them in discussions,” said Councilman Greg Sellers in September.
Fortunately there is still time for needed change. The City Council must take action to further define the goals of the public meetings, thus ensuring they are subject to the Brown Act – a state law that guarantees the public access to the workings of government.
Likewise, the council should scrap the idea of holding meetings in private homes and host the conversations in City Hall, the Community & Cultural Center and other areas where public access is guaranteed. If the goal of the meetings is to engage residents in small groups, then several smaller meetings could be held simultaneously in public forums. The promise that the city will hold at least one “capstone” meeting where everyone can attend is simply not good enough.
Granted some community groups have agreed they’ll allow anyone to attend their meetings, the public needs to be assured all meetings will be open.
If for no other reason than to avoid suspicion, the city should take every measure possible to ensure the meetings are open and inviting to every resident.
The city says they want input from the public – the best way to do that is by making every meeting open to the public.
