In last Thursday morning's Standard-Examiner, there was an article about how the Council violated its own procedure by not allowing the letters and resumes of applicants to be made public. Having recently participated in the applicant procedure, here's a sequential overview of how it went.
- Announcement in a press release of the opening, with instructions as to when and where applicants should submit, with the admonition that submissions would be public information.
- Submitted my letter of intent and resume on September 11, 2006, minus anything that I did not wish to be public information, and received Council Handbook, with a date on the cover of September 12, 2006, which also stated inside that submitted info was public information. (This was quite clear at this point in the process.)
- Received letter stating that "requests" had been received that the order of presentation appearance would not be determined by lot at the meeting, as handbook said it would be, but had already been determined and here it was, enclosed. No mention of who made or granted requests or how decision to do this was made, or by whom.
- Announcement at the first applicant screening by Chair Garcia that the press was present and requesting the information heretofore deemed public information and that "it had been decided" that it was now private information and would not be released to them.
Cook said private information provided by some of the council finalists could have been redacted, enabling the letters to be made public, but the process would have been too cumbersome.
The decision to withhold the letters was made in conjunction with City Council Chairman Jesse Garcia, Vice Chairwoman Amy Wicks, and City Attorney Gary Williams.
I think this is an excellent illustration of why we have had, are having, and will continue to have unless this is fixed, problems with the functioning of local city government. It is simply not working the way it was designed to.
What we're talking about here is Policy. Setting policy is the Council's function. Yet did the Council as a whole know about the changes in the policy as outlined in the policy handbook? I know of at least one member who did not, so the answer to that is no.
Thursday's article baldly states that the decision to change the public/private info part of the policy was made in a meeting with the Chair, Vice Chair, Exec, and Attorney. The article goes on to say:
The council's policy will be amended to reflect circumstances when information on applicants for appointed positions may be withheld, Cook said.
We really need to get one thing straight. A very simple thing. The Council sets policy. Not two members of the council, not the executive director, and not the attorney, and not those four individuals in a private meeting. The council as a whole does this.
Was there a public meeting and a resolution passed stating these changes in policy? That's the way it's supposed to happen.
I don't think it did.
What we seem to have, and heaven knows how it got this way, is two members of the council suddenly having elevated policy making/changing powers. Evidently, this is accepted and happens frequently, and may be one reason why we, when we question council members about one decision or another, receive the response---We didn't know.
We the voting public, who are always making a great deal of noise about accountability, have shrugged our shoulders at that response and accepted it. It seems that the council itself accepts this method of decision making as business as usual. We should remember, however, that we did not vote for two people, an exec, and an attorney to be our legislative governing body. We voted for a council of seven.
Each of those seven individuals has one vote, and they should be using it. That is their responsibility as elected officials. If they are being prohibited from using it, they should rectify that.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the specific decisions made in the above examples is not the main issue. The main issue is that it seems decisions are being made in the name of the Council in some instances without the previous knowledge or consent of the full body.
That's not right. It means that our system is not working the way it is supposed to. And although one might think that these decisions concern trivial matters, or that no real harm was done, the fact remains that the day might come when matters under consideration are not trivial. Can we really expect a body of individuals, our council, which is used to working in the way I have just outlined, to instinctively make a rapid about-face and immediately begin functioning the way it was intended to? Especially since it hasn't been doing that for some time now?
I don't think so. I'm drawing attention to this not because I have any quarrel with the way things turned out, (I do not,) but because I think it shows a disregard for established policy that does not bode well. I think this is something that the council as a body should address, and the sooner the better.
Accountability is just that--accountability, and to be held accountable for decisions one in actuality had no part in making is not a safe or desirable state of affairs for anyone. Including all of us.
Ed. Note: This morning's excellent Standard-Examiner editorial touches briefly upon Dian's issue concerning improper and extra-legal exercise of government powers, and also broadens the discussion to include a valid indictment of generally-increasing government secrecy. Both approaches, of course, focus on the greater issue of compromised government accountability. Although we are often critical of the Std-Ex for what we sometimes deem to be lax editorial and reportorial standards, we will also give credit where it is due, and commend the Std-Ex editorial board for this morning's strong editorial.
28 comments:
Dian,
Thank you for your excellent article this morning!
This does go hand in hand with the Standard's editorial this morning also.
I give high praise to the editorial board and writer of the Standard's scolding of our local and legislative representatives for their arrogance in withholding PUBLIC information from the citizens.
You are correct, Dian, in pointing out the flagrant violation of the City's own policy in the Council member replacement process.
And you properly put the responsibility to call this Chair, Vice Chair, Mr.Cook and city attorney to accountability onto OUR shoulders. If we don't speak up and demand rectifying action of our entire Council, then we are getting the government we not only deserve, but are willing to settle for.
Shame on them. Shame on us.
I invite and challenge our gentle and informed readers to speak out at Tuesday's Council meeting and admonish that they come together as a WHOLE Council which will act as the whole legislative body they have sworn to be.
I can't understand why this Council allows Bill Cook to usurp their power AND authority. Why is this Council allowing Jesse and Amy to take decision-making upon themselves?
I implore this Council, which I am sure read this blog, to stand up, speak up and exercise your lawful duty.
The Council reminds me of a dysfunctional family...two children are out of control,who are influenced by a smooth-talking 'friend' (Cook ,and his gang boss), who brings along his 'enforcer' (Atty)...the rest of the family appears to be frustrated in bringing these recalcitrant chidlren back into the fold so that the unit can function as one in purpose.
Now is the time to issue a RESTRAINING ORDER against Cook, Godfrey, and the city attorney.
Stay OUT of the Council business. Mr. Cook, you ASSIST the Council...you don't rewrite policy, and corrupt the process of city government.
Council, I beg you to read your own policies which you each raised your hand and did swear to uphold. Do that! Serve the city as I know you desire to do. Don't give awy your legal power to the Chair, Vice Chair, Cook and the city atorney. Cook and attorney were not ELECTED by the voters to represent them!
Have you considered hiring a replacement for Mr. Cook? One who understands his duty and place?
When I went in to the get the info, mr.crook told me that is the process the old council used when markie johnson resigned. I wonder where it is written of what the old council did, or was mr.crook just makeing this up so he could do what ever he pleased. It would be nice if the mr. jess no backbone garcia call mr crook on the carpet over this one. or is jesse just going to let him do what ever because jesse is tooooo lazy. how about it jess?
your fired!! bill crook now. come on Jesse say that and it will feel so good.
"SEE...."
How about YOU getting up on Tu nite and saying exactly what you just posted?
So many here are up in arms either FOR (matt jones) or AGAINST (lousy treatment of ff's and opd) something, but when I look around at the meetings, hardly anyone ever gets up to lay it on he line!
How come?
Hope you've emailed the Council and Cook?
I really do think this is important. How can we expect the Council to function as it should when decisions are being made in its name by some of its members that the others do not know about? Once something like that happens, an individual Council member would have the choice to simply accept it or be put in the position of speaking out against the decision. This might be construed as not supporting Leadership, which would go against the popular notion of Teamwork. Might be construed as rocking the boat, stirring the pot, or just plain Troublemaking.
It would be difficult to do for these reasons, the dissenting member might become somewhat unpopular for making everybody look bad, and the appalling thing about all this is that making decisions, pro or con, about issues and policy is not only the right, but the responsibility of every one of them.
Secondly, "All official decisions are made in regular or special Council meetings." (That from the handbook.) If the attorney had found a legitimate reason for the process to be changed, then a Special Meeting should have been called and votes run on the issues by the entire Council after a presentation by the attorney. This might have been, as has been said, "cumbersome," but the workings of checks and balances in government are cumbersome. That is their nature, and we elect some individuals and pay others to go through these processes.
This is the same type of situation that happened during the police and fire negotiations. It was alleged then that, although the process was written down in the form of Resolution 95-9, it was not followed. In fact, it was stated a few times by a couple of elected officials that there was no need to follow it.
Which makes one ask--Why make resolutions, if no one is going to abide by them? Why issue a policy handbook if the policy isn't set, but rather something that can be made up as one goes?
And the most important question being---Is this the kind of local government we want?
Can't speak for everyone, but I would really like to have a local government that works the way it is designed to work and keeps its word. I don't think we can look at this situation, ongoing as it is, and state--No harm, no foul. In my opinion, this way of doing business has weakened the entire structure of the Council, and that does do harm.
One of the problems with the Council and other departments, is the facct that they are taking advice from the City employed " Low Bid" attorney. His decisions are always made on the fact it is better to take the high ground on decisions, rather that follow the law and established procedures. A good example of this is the recent fiasco regarding the treatment of the Police and Fire Departments during negotiations, the list goes on and on.
Sometimes Low Bid isnt really a good deal when asking for advice.
This continuing attempt to distinguish between Mr. Cook and the Council still seems to me off target. Mr. Cook serves at the Council's pleasure and reports to the Council. If the Council was not happy with that arrangement, it would have done something about it some time ago. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I think we have to conclude that Mr. Cook enjoys the Council's confidence.
As for not releasing the letters of intent: that violated the Council's own procedures, as the SE pointed out. It seems evident that a potential applicant for the vacant post, having been informed that his or her letter of intent would be matter of public record, would have, upon submitting a letter, also supplied by the act of that submission, his or her implied consent to have the contents on the public record.
If certain Council members believed there was some impropriety, or even illegality, involved in making all the content of the letters public [e.g. addresses and phone numbers of the applicants children or perhaps references], two minutes with a black marker would have been sufficient to redact that information, and a xerox copy of the redacted letter could and should have been made available to the press and on the city website rapidly. That some Council members might have found the process inconvenient is not sufficient justification for the Council violating its own procedures.
It really should be very simple: the Council's default position on public access should always be "yes, of course," absent any compelling reason to do otherwise. Compelling reason and explainable reason. We all understand there are circumstances in which the release of information the Council has would clearly be unwise, imprudent or illegal. [E.g. information that might work to the city's disadvantage in pending legal proceedings, or uninvestigated allegations of illegal conduct by a city employee for example.] None of those circumstances seem to have obtained in this instance.
I share Rudi's belief that the SE editorial today nailed it.
This morning's SE [Monday] has another piece [Top of Utah section] on this matter. The Council will apparently amend its procedures in order to keep information submitted by candidates for appointment to empty seats secret.
Some of what they want hold secret makes sense. Social security numbers, phone numbers of relatives, etc. But they also intend to keep secret the names of references. Apparently all they Council wants to be responsible for making public is the names of those who've applied for the vacant seat.
What possible rationale can there be for witholding the names of the references the candidates submit? That these people might not wish to be known as references for the candidate? That makes no sense. Imagine someone running for election to the Council who claimed "my candidacy is endorsed by several business and church leaders, but I can't tell you who they are because they don't want anyone to know they are endorsing me." Would the electorate be satisfied with that? I certainly hope not.
What the Council members seem to have forgotten is that they are standing in for the electorate in filling a seat by appointment. And for them to say, as apparently they want to say, "we know who is willing to stand as a reference for Candidate X, but we don't want to have to tell you who they are" borders on the ludacrous. It would be funny if it did not bespeak, as the SE editorial suggested, an attitude of arrogance and borderline contempt for the citizens.
"For now, the City Council and the mayor have agreed to look at city ordinances and clean them up to reflect their respective responsibilities." So say the Syracuse City Council and mayor as reported in this morning's Standard Examiner.
Now, it is the CITY COUNCIL which appers to have gotten up on its collective hind legs and pushed back at the mayor for "authorizing $210,000 worth of landscaping on Jensen Nature Park and not sharing information with members of the Council."
Well, take heed Ogden City Council members. Isn't it past time that this Council reigned in Mayor Godfrey? He who has perfected the disingenuous 'art' of back room deals, misinformation, dissembling, and outright lying. This Ogden mayor also takes upon himself authority that belongs to the Council...and so far, the Council has rolled over with its hindlegs in the air, perhaps hoping the mayor will scratch their tummies??
Do WE need to present this Council with a petition to 'take back your legal authority and do your sworn duty'?
The Se editorial deals with this issue in Syracuse, but neglects to her the rumblings of the rabble here in Oz. Methinks that a Council/Mgr style of government is gaining more and more momentum.
How about the concern that Greiner and Brummett may be in violation of the Hatch Act?
Greiner, because he "manages federal funds." Well, well, well.
Now he'll see what it is like to be 'investigated', eh? I don't think the 'investigation' into his "license plate and putting Jones on administrative leave" fiasco is going to amount to an inch of censure. How could it? The one looking into his and Godfrey's bad boy actions is a good ol' boy right here in our own Emerald City.
While this Council redefines its and the mayor's 'responsibilites', they need to look at just what the city attorney is allowed to do also.
Like Curm, I too am extremely disappointed that this Council has once again been usurped by Cook and their attorney.
WHAT is this Council thinking? Of course the people have a right to know facts about any replacement considered for the Coucil.
We knew about them, didn't we? Apparently we didn't know ENUF about Glasmann!!
We keep saying that those up for reelection next year will be OUT...but now I'm thinking that the 'new' ones might be thinking their Tueday and Thursday nights will be free.
As Curm stated earlier, a black marker and about 5 minutes time would've redacted SS #'s, home phones, street addresses and minor children.
I would like to know just WHO gave their names as 'references' for these applicants. THAT says a lot about a person.
What this Council has been a party to is disgraceful. There was a promise of the 'light being on the Council's doings'..but now the light seems to be shining, from of all places, the STANDARD EXAMINER!
Hate to be so prolific here, but I just read the CC agenda for tomorrow nite. Page 2B of Top of Utah.
Who are al these people who are being appointed and reappointed to WHAT? Various UNNAMED committees?
PROPOSED RSEOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION OF COUNCIL NORMS"
Say what??? I think all this is being decided now and in the 'eork' meeting at 5 pm. Has anyone else noticed that very little, if anything, is actually discussed by this Council in front of the people in the Chambers??
We just get some innonuous blather on the agenda that doesn't convey squat to the public. Everything is decided beforehand, and THEN the public gets to comment after the dirty deeds are voted on..
Are Bill Cook and the atty drawing up these revisions? Does the Council even understand how ill served the voters are?? The public must speak out.
The more I think about it, I think Ozboy has the right idea..(on the earlier thread.) There is soooo much chicanery in our city government, so much meddling from the mayor into Council business, and a take-over of the Council by Cook and the city attorney without firing a shot!
'Welcome to the Land of Oz, the Home of the Munchkin, his Sycophants nad the Clueless Council. Enter at your own risk.'
A crowd ready to speak needs to be at the Council meeting tomorrow nite...and if you want to know what's going on, attend the work meeting. Should be open to the public, as all those people up for automatic appoints have already been approved. But, by whom? And, who nominated them in the first place?
Oh, forgetful me...we're not supposed to know 'references' qualifications and 'nominators', are we?
At the inception of this process,
candidates were told in a public notice that whatever they submitted would be public information.
What this means is that the releasing of that information to the public was the responsibility of the candidate.
That's one main point. Candidates were notified of the policy at the beginning. A sort of "Apply At Your Own Risk," announcement.
So let's take a look at that policy. It's in the handbook. It's evidently been in use for some time. One would assume that there's a large possibility that it's there for a reason, that is, that information of applicants is public information, perhaps under law.
Now, suddenly, someone has found liability issues associated with this policy. I would agree that black magic marker here would have been the way to go. Although Mr. Cook stated that this would be "cumbersome," we are only talking about the five candidates in this instance, not the original thirty-nine.
If, as it seems, the entire policy now should be changed because of these suddenly surfacing liability issues, the correct method of doing that in my opinion would have been through a vote of the entire Council through the passing of a Resolution. Mr. Cook, as the Executive Director, should have notified the Chair that there was an emergency problem that required a special meeting. What seems to have happened is that Mr. Cook and Mr. Williams met with Leadership, decided to change the policy, announced that the policy was changed, and then informed the rest of the Council.
An instance, once again, of putting the cart before the horse.
That is what I am objecting to. The Council very well may trust Mr. Cook, as Curmudgeon speculates. In a way, it has to. Mr. Cook is the individual who informs the body of sunset laws and deadlines that have to be dealt with, helps draft ordinances, and facilitates various types of business, among other things. I would assume there would be a big tendency on Mr. Cook's part, knowing, as he does, what needs acting upon, to just go ahead and fix things with the acquiescence of the Chair and Vice Chair instead of bothering with a meeting of the entire Council, and probably everyone thinks this habit relatively harmless.
It is that assessment of harmlessness with which I disagree. Protocol for organizational functioning must be consistant. If some decisions may be made with only two members of the council instead of the entire body, that is not consistant.
Just read Sharon's post--PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF APPROVING MODOFICATIONS TO COUNCIL NORMS is, I would think, the notification that the entire body is just now getting around to a vote on this decision about public/private info. After having announced it in the paper, and after having acted upon it by refusing to release the info, they are now going to vote on whether or not to do that. This is what I am talking about and objecting to.
When we allow policy decisions to be made without a vote of the entire body, we open a door to establishing a custom of decisions being made that way. And who then decides which decisions are made in that manner and which are not?
We may have that gondola before we know it.
I think that quite simply the council didn't want public input, didn't want the [public to see the potential good people applying, and were personally intimidated by the quality of people. They fear for their seats and know that next year is going to suck for them....even for the remaining three, as htey are going to have to face a slew of new, intelligent and free thinking members.
Let us just pray that 2bits is correctomundo on what he is projecting for next year. And lets also pray and keep our fingers crossed that before then the Little Lord does not succeed in giving away the park and placing the public in long term bondage with this ridiculus, nay obscene, urban gonodola and Peterson enrichment scheme.
One absolutely pricelesss quote out of the above linked article on Griener was the one from Stuart Reid: "They thought I was a city employee and I had to prove I wasn't" Well duh! Practically anyone in the city could have told "them" that!! He sucked out of the city trough big time as he was building these Little Fella monuments - all losers, and now he continues to slop up our tax dollars to the tune of $70 thousand or so a year as a "consultant". Work for the tax payers of Ogden? Hell no, he never did lift a finger for any of us!!
What a choice, Greiner or Reid! Ain't folks in that district lucky or what?
To me the most alarming thing about this council is that they seem to be actually considering Peterson and his mouth piece's proposal that the city surrender all of its long held and properly working zoning, permitting and building regulations to accomodate his "grand plan" of screwing Ogden tax payers. It is bizarr on the face of it and our council is actually studying it and spending tax payer money to do so.
I would suggest that the council not only consider replacing Cook because of his closelness, or perceived closeness to the Godfreyites, as well as his worship of the League of Cities and towns manual, but as the RDA board they should absolutely replace his little highness as executive director. These are two major, tax payer owned, multi million dollar operations and they should have directors in both organizations that are educated, trained, experienced, degreed and capable of running, and without special agenda's of their own, advice the board of directors. (council) This is something this council/board does not have now with these two "leaders". These two major citizen owned enterprises are being run and dictated to by two incompetent and agenda ruled individuals that are not up to the task. It is as if MicroSoft were being run by the Lafferty brothers.
This is probably the most boring string of entries ever entered in this blog. While Sharon, Curm and the other 2 people with soooo much time on their hands discuss the need to see other people's social security numbers...can't we move onto the next topic?
Let's discuss some real problems with this city...not the need to see other people's social security numbers.
I think you all have a good point about transparency, but I also think this time you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Granted, they were given some bad advice on something that they should have checked out, but I’m also sure that they thought this was just a procedural matter. Let’s not shoot them for this. I sure don’t walk on water.
Let’s focus on the big stuff and the majority of the CC members are getting it right in the big picture. The big picture is where I feel their efforts should be directed right now any way. If Cook gave them bad advice then if it becomes a trend then they’ll need to get together and deal with it. But until then don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Anonymous1: "This is probably the most boring string of entries ever entered in this blog."
It's obviously over YOUR head then, innit. GO to your usual book-marked porno sites, where we're sure you'll find the discussion much more engaging.
Anonymous2" "But until then don’t throw out the baby with the bath water."
I think what's happening with the present discussion is a process of identifying areas where the council needs to pay attention, and improve its performance.
We can agree that the council should follow their own rules, right? -- and that it's NOT OK for a couple of council members to make executive decisions for the rest of the council just because they wear the honorary badge of council leadership? We're hopefully on the same page with regard to this fundamental principle, we would hope, anonymous2.
Nobody's suggesting throwing out the baby (meaning the current council, we suppose.) BTW, although the murky and tepid "bathwater" plainly cries out for serious draining... and the tub plainly requires a few hours with a brillo-pad.
Anon:
Neither Sharon nor Dian nor I have, so far as I can see, suggested in any post above making applicants' or their family members' or their references' social security numbers publically available. How you concluded that we had escapes me.
In fact, we three agree that those 'sensitive and very private' entries be redacted with a black marker!
There is nothing 'boring' about preserving the public right to know who is represtnting them.
Nothing boring about objecting to the Chair and Vice Chair, Cook and the atty taking it upon themselves to change policy without informing the Council nor having a vote of the Council.
In fact, I beleive this should come up tomorrow night with public comments first!
It's the public whom they serve.
You're all still boring. Knock yourselves out in solving this burning issue. Nobody cares.
Tell you what...let's have Godfrey, the Council, and the rest of the people in Ogden worry about the real issues and that'll leave the penny-ante ones up to you guys. Have at it.
anonymous...
we all know that you bill cook and tring to get us of the subject of your big screw up. why don't you just admit what you did was wrong and that you have pushed the council into an embaressing situation and resign so that you don't cause any more embaressemant to them. If I was on the city council I for one would be letting you that we are your boss and not the other way around.
Anon...
Since the rights of the people are of no consequence to you, and you seem content to let your 'leaders' make decisions for you...even if they take away your rights; than you are obviously living in the wrong country.
Millions are rushing our borders fleeing the kind of government you espouse. See how bored you are when your voice is stifled for good.
I agree with anonymous.
short mayor frees
fumbling, freely, ogden runs
firmly, recklessly
Where are you morons keeping your stash?
Better watch out
Jon has clout
he'll send the dope squad
and jail your butts, by gawd.
Anon:
Well, the thing is, at this moment, nothing is actually on the table vis a vis the policy of making public letters of intent. The council has already filled the pending vacancy. But that is precisely when important policies get changed. When there seems to be little immediately at stake and no one is looking.
When it might matter... and it might never matter or not for a long time if the Council has no sudden vacancies to fill... but when it might matter is next time there is an appointment to fill. But overall, it does matter that citizens in general believe, and that their elected officials believe, that public disclosure of information on which they base their decisions is important. No government... city, state or nation... can long afford to have people assuming "they don't give a crap" or "they do it all in secret anyway." Over time that diminishes general respect for the Council and the Mayor and government in general, and over time it will diminish the effiveness of the Ogden city government and all of its parts.
Sorry you think all this is mere trivia. There is so much cynicism about government out there now, particularly among young people [of which you may be one; I do not know] that I'm loathe to simply nod quietly at anything that will increase it. And the Council's removing its obligation to make as much information as possible public when it acts in lieu of the electorate [say in filling a sudden Council vacancy] will certainly do that.
I am posting on this blog only for a minute, and to give everyone another point of view to think about.
Sharon, there weren't very many people at the Council meeting, and no one took the opportunity to speak, but the Council did as you suggested: "I invite and challenge our gentle and informed readers to speak out at Tuesday's Council meeting and admonish that they come together as a WHOLE Council which will act as the whole legislative body they have sworn to be." The Council after amending the new ordinance amending the Council Norms, passed it unanimously.
I did speak up before the vote was taken and tried to say the following which I had prepared ahead of time, but I swear my tongue must have thought that I had just washed it because it sure jumbled the words and thoughts up. I hope that I was able to get the main thought across.
"I understand that the Council has been discussed and cussed. But it is not the responsibility of the Council to give out the candidates' personal information --it is the candidates'. When we ran for the Council, WE gave you our personal information. This a little different situation, but it is the candidate's responsibility to give out his/her personal information.
I upset one of my daughters-in-law because I told one of my sons that they were expecting a baby. She felt that it was HER RIGHT to tell him. This is the same thing - it is the candidate's right to share or not share his/her information. The Council does not have the right to go against the wishes of the candidate.
Just as the public has the right to know about who will be representing them, the candidate has rights. He/she has the right to refuse to release that information. The Council has an obligation to honor and comply with the candidate's wishes. The Council and the public should respect the rights of the candidates. I don't want anyone else making my decisions for me, and I don't want to make personal decisions for anyone who is capable of making his/her own decisions. For those reasons, I support changing the Council Norms."
I honestly feel, in my heart, that it is the candidate's right to decide what happens with his personal information -- not the Council's.
Thanks for reading my point of view and you have the right to agree or disagree with it because we live in this wonderful and great country, where millions have lived and died fighting for our rights. I will be eternally grateful for them.
I thought that when a person runs for public office whether it is open election or open seat, that peson has now open themselves up to the public and to have the council with hold that info from the public is just dead wrong. if people dont want that public then stay out of public office.
New comments are not allowed.