”
A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.
”
~ Playwright Arthur Miller
“A good newspaper, I suppose, is a nation talking to itself.” ~ Playwright Arthur Miller
When it comes to Morgan Hill’s plan for “community conversations” about how to close a $1.3-million budget gap, city officials would do well to listen to the community talking on the pages of this newspaper.
In case you’ve missed the details of the brouhaha, it centers on the city’s plan to hold meetings to find out how citizens want to handle that budget gap: raise taxes, and if so, by how much, or cut services. Each meeting will involve a long presentation on the details of the city budget during which attendees will be asked for their opinions.
So far, so good.
The controversy stems from the fact that the city is willing to hold private meetings. If a meeting host wants to close the meeting to other residents or to the press, that’s fine and dandy with the city.
It’s not fine and dandy with me or with the newspaper, and it shouldn’t be fine and dandy with residents.
No reporters means no unbiased reporting (not done by a city employee or contractor) is possible on what was said at the meeting. There’s no way for excluded residents to judge how fairly the city presents its budget dilemma and possible solutions. There’s no way for excluded residents to judge how accurately the city staff and city consultants recap the opinions expressed.
“The media is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democracy. It’s not our job to cozy up to power. We’re supposed to be the check and balance on government.” ~ Journalist Amy Goodman
Being an open government, free-flow-of-information advocating, sunshine-loving former journalist, I’ve voiced concerns about this plan. A look at The Times’ opinion pages shows I’m not alone in these worries. City officials would do well to stop rationalizing the possibility of closed meetings and start listening to the public’s concerns.
Instead, these concerns have some city officials on the defensive.
City Councilman Mark Grzan’s recent guest column justifying the city’s plan and criticizing The Times for daring to denounce it demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding about the role of the media and the difference between news and opinion.
In one paragraph, Grzan complains about The Times’ editorials calling for open meetings and then confuses the issue by talking about the importance of bias-free news reporting.
I’d like to point Grzan to the top of the page on which editorials run, and the seven very large bold letters that spell “Opinion.”
Editorials are not news reporting and, thus, are not expected to be free of bias. Editorials are, by definition, the opinion of the newspaper.
As an institution that requires the free flow of information to do its important job of informing the community about what governmental agencies are doing, of course the newspaper has a bias toward open meetings.
And that bias belongs on the page with the giant bold letters spelling “Opinion” – just where The Times put it.
That bias has no place in news stories, and all of The Times’ reporting on this issue has been fair and accurate.
Grzan needs to understand that The Times’ job is not to “partner,” as he put it, with the city on any matter. The Times’ job is to inform the community.
If The Times’ reporters are shut out of some community conversations, it cannot inform community members what their governmental agencies are doing.
Of course residents can talk or write to city council members privately on any issue. That is a far different matter than city-blessed, city-organized and taxpayer-funded closed meetings.
Because the city will be careful to ensure that any closed community conversations do not meet Brown Act requirements for open, noticed meetings (primarily by making sure no more than two city council members attend any meeting), they will comply with the letter of the law.
But that is a far different thing than complying with the spirit of the law:
“… The public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law 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. The people … do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.” ~ Ralph M. Brown Act
Lisa Pampuch is a technical editor and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. She lives in Morgan Hill with her husband and two children. Reach her at li*********@***me.com.
