I am pleased that residents are challenging the behavior of Morgan Hill City Council. The Council needs to assert its independence and understand that the California Open Meeting (aka Brown) Act consists of guidelines and minimums rather than absolutes and maximums.
The Brown Act allows—in limited circumstances—a governing body to meet out of sight of the public in closed session. But that is a choice; some cities even conduct labor negotiations in public.
The privilege of confidentiality in closed session is owned by the governing body and not the City Attorney nor by the City Manager who recently “explained” the City Council action.
The City Manager repeatedly tells Council that their only job is to set policy. Other well-run cities know that their other job is holding the administration accountable, which includes formal performance evaluation of the City Manager.
The City Council in Gilroy held open public meetings to discuss how their new City Administrator (City Manager) would be evaluated against both subjective and objective standards. They also have a lengthy Work Plan for their administration with details you will not find in the Morgan Hill Work Plan.
But Gilroy Council voted on the top five and progress on those are also part of the Administrator evaluation.
The monthly Saturday Coffee ended with the current Mayor. Why are Councilmembers not holding him to his stated plan to have regular coffees and to rotate meeting locations through each Council District and co-host with the District Council member?
Many governing bodies publish meeting agendas and materials earlier than the three-day minimum in the Brown Act. Do you want to participate in Council meetings by spending your weekend reading, researching and composing comments for the meeting the following Wednesday?
The Santa Clara Valley Water District publishes an initial version 10 days in advance and a final update at the three-day limit. County Supervisor and VTA boards and committees publish early and then notify as additional materials are added up to meeting time.
The Council needs to hear specifics and not euphemisms. If you wanted to understand how effective administration outreach was, using three residents and a newspaper reporter attending a budget community meeting, would the City Manager telling Council “we did not fill the Council Chambers but we had a good conversation” adequately describe the event?
Doug Muirhead
Morgan Hill
This letter raises important questions about accountability, transparency, and what we should expect from our elected officials.
If transparency is more than mere compliance with the minimum requirements of the Brown Act, then leadership must also be more than mere compliance with the minimum expectations of holding public office.
Being technically within the rules is not the same as being transparent. Meeting minimum requirements is not the same as meaningfully engaging the public. And holding elected office is not, by itself, leadership.
Leadership means explaining decisions, answering difficult questions, communicating with the people you represent, and showing up when circumstances are uncomfortable or politically difficult. Accountability shouldn’t be something the public has to drag out of its elected officials.
The author asks us to look beyond “Are we legally allowed to do this?” and consider the more important question: “Is this how an accountable, transparent local government should operate?”
Those are questions worth asking
and questions every Morgan Hill voter should be asking of the people seeking to lead our city.