Surprise!

The Attorney General has spent a year investigating allegations of Open Meeting law violations on the Surprise Town Council and the conclusion is serious. 

Disregard for the public's right to know caught up to Surprise City Council on Friday when a yearlong Arizona Attorney General's Office investigation chastised the council for repeatedly violating the state's Open Meeting Law.

Here's part of the accusation.

* Johnson and former Councilmen Danny Arismendez and Gary "Doc" Sullivan admitted having separate but identical conversations outside public meetings with Shafer concerning council business. "This practice violates the Open Meeting Law and directly contradicts the fundamental tenants of the Open Meeting Law , which ensures that the people's business must be conducted in public," the report states.

Excuse me?  When did that become illegal?  Shuttle diplomacy--in which elected officials work out issues in groups that don't constitute a quorum--is extremely common.  What do you think all those legislative budget meetings are about? 

Not only is the practice common, it is encouraged.  In the year 2000, voters expanded the Arizona Corporation Commission from 3 to 5 members.  Here's what key legislators said when they referred the issue to the ballot. 

Sen. John Wettaw, R-Flagstaff, who co-sponsored the resolution with House Speaker Jeff Groscost, R-Mesa, thinks more members would bring stability to the panel and foster improved communication among members . Currently, they're prevented from discussing key topics outside an open meeting because two members of a three- member body constitutes a quorum under the state's Open Meeting Law .

Here's what the Republic said about the Proposition at the time.

We believe these changes merit voter approval.

With only three commissioners, the operations of the commission are occasionally unwieldy and excessively contentious. Two members constitute a majority, and generally a majority requires a posted, public meeting . This largely precludes private discussions between commissioners.

Now we are certainly in favor of governmental decisions being made in public, and are staunch defenders of Arizona's open - meeting laws . But basically prohibiting substantive private conversations between the elected commissioners relegates those discussions to aides, which is less efficient and can lead to misunderstandings.

The Attorney General and the media need to acknowledge that the the AG's opinion is a stark departure from historical practice and that it's unfair to single out the Surprise Town Council for prosecution. 

Of course, that type of professional restraint doesn't sell newspapers--or look good on a 30-second commercial for Governor.   

Comments

[Paul]

Greg, living in Surprise, I have to disagree with you here. The issue was that policy decisions were being settled out of sight of the public, and consequently without our input.

'Shuttle diplomacy' is one thing - this did not qualify. Rather, this was a case of two or three members colluding to determine their position on an issue before it was brought up before the public.

I'm very much in favor of open-meeting laws, and believe they bring a degree of transparency that had been lacking in Surprise's city council.

I'm not a fan of the state AG, but I think in this case - especially given the nature of and personalities on the Surprise city council - he made the absolutely correct call.

[Ann]

During Janet's years as AG, she was aggressive in her rulings on the OML. The AG ruling is seen as the current interpretation and under Goddard it hasn’t changed.

It is a violation if a series of individual conversations, with a common member in all, takes place involving a number of members that equal a quorum if the subject is the same. Polling the members, attempts to influence the members, or just circumventing public discussion of sensitive topics by having individual conversations with less than a quorum present, if the sum total of members in all conversations equals a quorum, is a big no-no. If it did not equal a quorum, no problem.

Members A and B of a 7 member council speak openly about an issue to each other. Member C and D speak about the same issue; 4 members but no commonality, no OML violation. Member A speaks to B and C. No violation. Member A then speaks to Member D and E, same subject. BINGO! Five members have held conversation, basically in counterpart, on the same topic. A decision may have been made by a public body without the benefit of the public.

[Ann]

The ACC ruling was not to encourage private conversation or shuttle diplomacy but to prevent all conversation outside the purview of the public meeting being a violation. A 3-member board is almost a violation in the making, walking to the parking lot together could present a perception of guilt. Two members agreeing, or disagreeing, in private to reach an end that will be presented in the public meeting is almost impossible to avoid if you are an active and contributing member.

[John]

They were "chastised"? Is that what passes as law enforcement in Arizona?

Imagine if they had really done something wrong. Goddard might have been forced to make the entire City Council sit on their naughty stools for a 10-minute time out!