Source: h/t DALL-E.
On February 17, 2024, the Richardson City Council discussed the potential video recording of Charter Review Commission meetings. Some questioned the need. Some the cost. Some were concerned about the fairness to Commissioners who did not anticipate being recorded. Councilmember Dan Barrios argued for recording the remaining meetings due to the Commission's significance. Councilmember Jennifer Justice made a motion to leave the current situation as it is (no video), with future Commissions informed in advance of whatever was decided at that time. The motion passed 4-3, with Mayor Pro Tem Arefin, and Councilmembers Dan Barrios and Joe Corcoran opposed. Kudos to them for taking the side of increased transparency.
Read on for details of the arguments.
First, though, this agenda item was amazing in one respect. It shows the City Council trying to take control of their own meetings. For years, I've wondered how Council meeting agendas are set. Thanks to Resolution No. 24-03 passed on February 26, 2024, we now have the Council's Rules of Order and Procedure in writing and published for all to see.
By the way, the effort to define their Rules of Order was prompted by the Council's own 2023-2025 Goals, specifically a Council tactic to "Explore codification of processes in relation to Council appointments, training, etc." City Manager Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer went above and beyond with the comprehensive document, "Rules of Order and Procedure." Kudos to them.
Ironically, the goal-setting meeting itself wasn't video-recorded. But according to my own notes, it was Councilmember Dan Barrios who asked for this tactic to be adopted by the Council. Kudos to Barrios.
How did this agenda item end up on the Council's agenda? Three Councilmembers (presumably Barrios, Corcoran, and Arefin) asked Mayor Dubey to add it to the agenda and Mayor Dubey asked City Manager Magner to do that. And so, thanks to the "new policy" (Magner's words), it was put on the agenda. That's all it takes.
Now, back to the agenda item itself: video recording Charter Review Commission meetings. Thanks to state law, the Council's own deliberations on this topic were recorded and are available for public viewing. I'll focus on selected statements.
Mayor Bob Dubey: "This was brought to my attention through multiple venues." Multiple means more than one, so to anyone who thinks I am the only person calling for video of meetings, the mayor just said otherwise. ;-)
Mayor Dubey: "Initially, I'll be honest, I said I don't think we even really need to discuss that. And I'll tell you why. I'm all about transparency, and I want us to be transparent." Mayor Dubey is allowed his own opinion, but the attitude of rejecting something without even discussing it is not consistent with being "all about transparency."
Mayor Dubey: "Here's what concerns me, is the fact that we have all these volunteers. They're not voted, they're not elected by the community. These are volunteers that agree to go onto a commission. Not once do we tell them that we're going to take away their thought processes or by filming them and sending it out to the world. And I think that's important, that we don't change the goal post in the middle of already having this commission appointed."
Fair enough. If expectations were set that the meetings would not be recorded, then meeting those expectations can be a reason to not record the remaining meetings. But it was an error that those expectations were set. That's on the Mayor. I don't think camera shyness is a good reason not to record public meetings of the Charter Review Commission. Members are considered city officers subject to the City's Code of Ethics. They weren't dragooned into their role. They applied. They should have a thick enough skin to withstand public scrutiny of their work.
Mayor Pro Tem Arefin: "We did not tell [Commission applicants] that we are going to record it, [or] vice versa. So there was no discussion about recording." Going back to Mayor Dubey's comments, apparently if there were any expectations the Commissioners might have had about recording or not recording, it was not because of what the Council told them. Turning on cameras would not be going back on any promises made.
Mayor Pro Tem Arefin: "Absolutely, I mean, eventually, if budget is not an issue, manpower is not an issue, I would like to see every board and commission get broadcast live." Good. Arefin stood up for increased transparency. He didn't try to offset his "no" with claims that we're already transparent.
Councilmember Curtis Dorian: "I support being transparent. Of course, I think we all do, and I think it's important that the stakeholders, Richardson residents, are privy to what kind of decisions and what our our commissions are doing." So then, put him down as a "yes"? Not so fast. He then objected to recording meetings because the Commission wasn't explicitly told that their meetings would be recorded and because "$100,000 is a lot of money."
After hearing several Councilmembers talk about money, City Manager Don Magner stated, "Let me make it clear. I didn't say this was a budget issue. I never, I never, I never implied that this was a budgetary question, okay. I just want to be clear about that. I never said that it was a budget issue." Even if some Councilmembers still want to make cost the issue, there are ways to record meetings cheaply. The conference room where the Charter Review Commission meets has a camera on the screen at the end of the table they sit around. Connect an omnidirectional microphone placed on the table itself. Turn it on and hit record. Quality won't match the Monday night City Council recordings, but it'll be adequate and certainly better than nothing, which is what we have now. Using cost as a reason to say "no" instead of a (possible) problem to be solved is a tell that cost is really just an excuse.
Councilmember Joe Corcoran: "I feel like right now, people are already out there misrepresenting what our city staff are saying, misrepresenting, or dissecting at least, what the Charter Review Commission members are doing...What's 500 bucks just for us to film it ourselves and kind of control the narrative there and just make sure everything is recorded in our archive and accurately represented?"
Fair enough. Someone needed to say that keeping a video record of what a commission does can be a protection against misrepresentation. Corcoran didn't say who he thinks is doing the misrepresenting, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's me. I'm using lots of quotes in these blog posts. If anyone thinks I'm misquoting them, or quoting them out of context, they should welcome that they could refer to the City's recorded video to back up their allegation. As it is, I can say almost anything I want and they have no video record to dispute me.
Councilmember Dan Barrios: Video recording was "not in any conversations I was privy to...I don't think it was on our radar." With that, Barrios confirms that not recording meetings was not an expectation set by the Council when interviewing or choosing members for the Charter Review Commission.
Barrios: "I heard through the grapevine, somebody in the community had a recording of [the commission meetings], and I went to that person and said, Can I have a recording? Their response was, No, you can't have my recording of the meeting. And I was like, Okay, well, I'm just trying to see what staff said, and I think having that recording on a permanent basis, I think also protects staff, and I feel that as part of the Council, that's something we have a responsibility to have that transparency for their sake."
Count that as support for Corcoran's arguments in favor of recording meetings. It's in the Commission's own interest. It's surprising that Barrios is the only Councilmember who expressed a desire to watch the recordings himself. The City Council will be asked to vote yes or no on the Commission's recommendations this summer. I can understand that individual Commissioners might be intimidated if a Councilmember, or all seven Councilmembers, came in person to their meetings. Allowing Councilmembers to view a recorded video of the Commission's deliberations is a great way to avoid that but still allow them to understand the arguments behind the Commission's recommendations. That opportunity is now denied then.
Councilmember Ken Hutchenrider: "Transparency is sharing your thoughts and opinions honestly and respectfully in an open way without secrets. I believe we are doing that. We have every one of these meetings open. I believe if someone is concerned enough that they want to know what is occurring, then they have every right to come in and be a part and sit and listen to what is occurring in the meeting."
Of course they have that right. That's not being questioned. But what about those with an inability to exercise that right? What about residents who have legitimate reasons why attendance in person is not feasible, either on a given night or all nights? Hutchenrider's answer to them is, in effect, tough luck. No transparency for you.
Being transparent isn't like being pregnant, where you either are or you aren't. There are degrees of transparency. One of the four Goals set by the City Council Hutchenrider serves on is: "To have clear, effective, efficient, continuously improved, and consistently applied processes and policies that make it easy for residents, employees, and all stakeholders to interact with the City" (emphasis added). Continuously increasing the number of meetings recorded is consistent with continuous improvement. Next time Hutchenrider (or the Mayor) talks about being transparent, he should explain what he does support in the way of "continuous improvement" in that regard instead of acting like improvement is not something to strive for.
Hutchenrider: "All of this information is going to come before the City Council, all of their recommendations, their thoughts, what they believe, what they don't believe." Hutchenrider is leaving his slider hanging because of course, not "all of their thoughts, what they believe, what they don't believe" is going to be in their final report. For that, you'd have to attend the meetings...or watch the video record, which of course won't exist because of thinking like Hutchenrider's.
Councilmember Jennifer Justice: "It's, I think, a great idea to record these in the future, when we budgeted for it and when we have communicated that to people who are going to serve on this commission." Fair enough.
In the end, Justice offered a motion, "I move to leave things as they are with respect to this Charter Review Commission, and would encourage staff for future Charter Commissions to make this part of the discussion before establishing the commission, so that everybody goes into it eyes wide open about what the expectations will be."
That motion passed 4-3. I would have preferred if the language was stronger about what future behavior would be. "Encouraging" staff to do something is weak tea. How about making it official policy for staff to follow in future?
What was not discussed (because it wasn't on the agenda) was what I have lobbied in favor of for years. That's recording *all* City Council meetings, including worksessions and special called meetings, which state law provides exceptions for. Maybe three Councilmembers will find it worth the public interest to add that to a future Council meeting agenda.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"A close vote is cast
about more transparency.
Cameras off for now."
—h/t ChatGPT
1 comment:
Day 1 if elected as your new Mayor of Richardson: All such meetings will be recorded for all citizens to watch at their convenience
Post a Comment