Open Government and Executive Level Transparency

Stew Rieckman deserves kudos for challenging local units of government to be truly transparent. (I wish he were equally challenging towards the state legislature--a corrupt and hypocritical outfit that rarely meets in open session, meets regularly in closed partisan caucuses, and houses only one member--Rep. Cory Mason--willing to open the caucuses to public view.). Still, I think Stew was off base in his Sunday column.

Since mid-June, every member of the Common Council has been deluged (no pun intended) with phone calls, emails, and other communications pleading with city government to explain what can and/or will be done to address flooding issues in the city. Many people ask and make comments about plans for the Westhaven golf course. Citizens want more--not less--open discussion among elected officials and city hall staff about such matters.

Given the city wide concern about such issues, I found it perfectly appropriate for councilors Burk Tower and Paul Esslinger to place on our agenda as items for "council member statements, announcements, and discussion" matters related to flooding and the golf course plans. Based on the state Department of Justice Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide, the manner in which the items were noticed on the agenda seems to be appropriate and reasonable.

Stew acknowledges that the council took no action on any item and there were no votes. He claims that as a result of the discussion, the following items were learned:

• The controversial Westhaven Golf Course retention pond, nature preserve plan was dead.
• That the city might own two golf courses.
• That the city might sell the Lake Shore Municipal Golf Course in favor of buying and operating a modified Westhaven Golf Course for flood control.
• That the city can turn off your water service if you do not comply with sump pump discharge ordinances.
• That the town of Algoma does not directly contribute to Oshkosh’s flooding problems.

In getting the city hall administration to reveal the above and other pieces of information, the council did not abuse the open meetings law. Rather, we did something that is all too rare: we demanded transparency from the City Hall staff. Citizens could have gone many more months thinking that the original plan for flood control at the Westhaven Golf Course was still "in play" if you will. Instead, we now know that the plan is off the table. That's a victory for transparency.

Citizens could have gone many months wondering if the possible selling of the Lakeshore course was being contemplated. We now know that it is. That's a victory for transparency.

Forcing executive level transparency is not common in Oshkosh. Instead, what typically happens is that individual councilors approach various department heads and get their questions answered privately. It seems to me much more in the spirit and letter of open government regulations to have open discussion of administrative plans.

Stew is also concerned about lack of citizen input during such wide ranging discussions. I am concerned about that too, which is why a year ago I argued that citizen comments should be allowed at all workshops. I don't remember receiving any editorial support or comment for that position.

In short, I agree that the potential for abuse of open government is always present at all meetings of legislatures. However, such abuse did NOT take place at the July 22 common council meeting. Councilors B. Tower and Esslinger took the leadership to provoke necessary public discussion of issues that the majority of citizens see as urgent. These discussions succeeded in bringing some executive level transparency to our proceedings--something that the press should encourage.