Our city attorney seems to be the chief enabler of secrecy at city council meetings.
It seems that somehow she is also our city parliamentarian and is the one who should be enforcing the rules.
Back on July 6, 2013 Public confession told us about how in a discussion about agenda and backup posting rules our city attorney/parliamentarian told us “council wasn’t doing that anway”.
Whose fault is that?
We could say that the parliamentarian should have put a stop to it. Then again the city attorney should have since at the time it was a violation of the city’s ethics ordinance.
Oops, that’s the same person. One problem here is that the city attorney can be removed with the vote of the mayor and the majority of city council. A city attorney might value his/her job more than their integrity.
Don’t we deserve to have a separate parliamentarian or at least someone who sees to it that council obeys the law? Maybe this is something that the Ad Hoc Charter Committee committee should take up.
Could we somehow have a city parliamentarian that is not beholding to city council for his/her job?
Another question is why the parliamentarian/city attorney allows this to happen.
Secrecy is the most plausible answer to me. Some seem to think that the voters should be kept in the dark.
We deserve better