Some of you may have tuned in for the big debate the Commission had a while back on sweeping changes to our alcohol related ordinances. At a work session, changes to the ordinance to bring it in line with state law were on the agenda. As it turned out, the staff proposed changes were far more expansive than mere state law alignment. Even though not a single Commissioner had seen any of these proposed changes before that public meeting, the media and many angry citizens nailed us with charges of pushing through radical and unnecessary legislation.
Angry Commish, Reining in the Law
Both Commissioner Lynn and I expressed anger that verged on outrage for having these proposals dumped on us without notice. I asked that the whole package get diverted to the standing legislative committee that I chair (the Legislative Review Committee) so the Commission could take control of the process and get a handle on it. While there are still some things that were eventually passed that I feel are unnecessary (i.e. it adds red tape without accomplishing any obvious community objective), we stripped away most of the provisions some deemed as a bit outrageous. There was a lot of panic and unnecessary anger because the proposal was presented in a "final" format (i.e the Attorney had already drafted it in code form) to the Commission and the Public at the same time. It is sometimes understandably difficult for the public to differentiate the "government" from the "government." In this case it was staff versus the elected decision-makers.
So What is the Difference Between Open Government and Sloppy Government?
Thus, it can be a challenge to decide when and at what stage in legislative development to publicize your work as a legislator. If you report too early, while a proposal is still rough and not completely vetted, you risk pointed criticism that the law is sloppy and full of flaws. If you wait too late, you risk being seen as secretive and closed. As most know, I like to err on the side of openness. You will be attacked no matter what path you choose, of course, which is why politics requires a thick skin and an accurate internal compass.
A Case in Point
I do have a point here. At the last session of the Legislative Review Committee we reviewed the 5th annual Growing Sustainably report. This document is the result of the leadership of the Athens Grow Green Coalition and the hard work of the bulk of environmental and preservation groups in our community. You may view the document here. The committee discussed those recommendations that pertained to ordinance action. It was a great discussion and I submitted the results of the meeting to the Mayor for further review. At this point, we have only proposed to investigate the 7 or so items on our list, and we do not necessarily agree that all (or any) require new laws. To a lesser extent than the alcohol controversy, posting that memo on my blog could ignite some anger from folks potentially on the receiving end of any new regs, even though we are not even close to deciding whether or not we need new regs. Also, there is the mayor to consider. Would you appreciate memos for your eyes immediately being posted on the web before you have had a chance to react to them?
Usually, we just hold public meetings (LRC is always a public meeting) and let the press decide what to print. This blog presents another opportunity for openness. But it also creates the potential for resentment from my colleagues if it is just a forum to air dirty laundry or share (semi)private memos (though everything is public record anyway). What do you think? Email me or better yet post here. I like to create with collaboration, so help me define the information you get from this blog.
The Bottom Line
Just so you know, my opinion, and therefore current blog policy, is that I will inform you all about actions and agendas and not post preliminary memos. At the end of the day, isn't that really what you are concerned with anyway? I am open to suggestions.
