Transparency is crucial to good government

After learning that Fountainís Mayor Jeri Howells and a citizen were basically barred from attending the first meeting of the Fountain Police Departmentís Police Advisory Committee Friday night, naturally I was quite alarmed.

As I understand things, they were told there werenít enough seats in the room for one thing (and yet the former city council chambers in the upper level of the police/fire building was wide open! Ironically, those roomy chambers -according to information provided to the Mayor- were originally to be the site at which the meeting was to take place.) Despite insisting the meeting should be open to her or other citizens, our Mayor (who has had at least 20 years experience in government making her full aware of open meeting laws) was still turned away.

A travesty, indeed!

Open meetings are not only crucial to good government, they are essential if we are to keep trust we place in our leaders. I know of no circumstances in which any citizen advisory group has met behind closed doors or turned interested parties away. The fact this happened should concern us all! The fact this group was compiled in a process unlike our other city advisory committees is also concerning! Generally, notices are posted so that any interested citizen can apply. Then, city council appoints citizens to fi ll the seats on the committee.

Essentially what took place was an "illegal" and improper meeting, and I know at least one citizen who was in attendance has become quite frustrated to learn she was made part of such a thing. I would have also thought that the former Fountain councilmember in attendance should have known better, as well; but for now Iíll extend him the benefi t of doubt, its been a few years since he served...

Too often, citizens don't come forward or speak out about concerns they may have with their local police or "city hall," for fear of possible reprisal or retaliation.

Its a common concern, whether or not it is justifi ed. Its my understanding

that some of those who were selected/approved to serve on this committ ee have

had past issues with the department and this was to be a venue in which bett er

communication could be established. Iím sure aft er all that has transpired in the last week, they may now have even bigger concerns...

At press time, I received an explanation from Chief Charles Crawford that part of the problem came about through choices of wording. He wrote, "This board could have as easily been called the police chief talks to citizens group. They have no authority to carry out any city business and make no decisions. In fact section 2A1 of my policy states "The Police Advisory Committ ee shall serve as an advisory board to the Police Chief, and will in no way diminish or alter the procedural, statutory and/or constitutional authority of the City.î Their sole purpose is to give me advice on police citizen relations and give me feedback on various topics we discuss.

ìAlthough this may be a new thing in this community, committ ees like this are utilized by police departments all over the country, and are created by the chief. I certainly could have just called some citizens on the phone and asked them to come in and talk to me on a regular basis, but police departments are great at making rules and regulations and we donít do much without policies. Perhaps I made a mistake in the name, which was selected for the acronym (PAC) and the detailed policy. These two things lead people to believe it is covered by charter. ...This was a group created by me, which could be eliminated by me at anytime. The group has no authority to conduct city business of any sort, and therefore is not a pubic board. In reference to the unfortunate events of February 15, I had no prior knowledge that anyone outside of myself and the committee members were planning to att end the meeting. Upon learning there were others wishing to attend I asked those at the meeting if they wanted to open it up to others and they said no, they wanted to keep it in a low key informal meeting directly with me.

"I must say that I am fl abbergasted at how such a positive endeavor has gotten so convoluted. My intention was to have real dialog with citizens, some who have not been very complementary of the police department, to see how we could do bett er. There were and are no other agendas on my part."

In response, I must say I'm still surprised the given "leader" of the meeting, Chief Crawford, didn't realize the mistake that was now unfolding behind closed doorsî and stop it, if nothing else.

I would have hoped any city leader would know the proper protocol for such a process - which would have prevented this from every happening in the first place. As well-intentioned and ìinnocentî as this whole thing may be, unfortunately it leaves citizens with concerns that someone in a position of "trust" acted in a manner that gave the impression of being ìabove the law,î or that the rules the rest of us abide by donít apply to them.

Our leaders should keep such considerations at the forefront of their thoughts, choices, actions, etc. I am hoping that as this situation gets resolved, the citizenry as a whole might be informed regarding how to apply, etc. provided the advisory committee is formed through proper channels. There could be some folks out there with awesome suggestions or the "answers" being sought!

PATTY'S ARCHIVES
4-11-07 | 4-25-07 | 5-2-07 | 5-16-07 | 5-23-07 | 6-6-07 | 6-13-07 | 6-20-07
6-13-07 | 7-4-07 | 7-11-07 | 7-18-07 |7-25-07 | 8-8-07 | 10-24-07 | 11-1-07
| 11-12-07 | 11-26-07 | 11-28-07 | 12-5-07 | 12-12-07 | 12-26-07 | 1-2-08
1-9-08 | 1-16-08