Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 9 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Forums are in the meeting
Published Friday, September 19, 2008
The Fergus Falls City Council should reconsider its decision to hold open forums after its regularly scheduled council meets.
It is our opinion that the session violates the spirit of our state's open meeting laws by purposely taking action to keep members of the public from receiving information regarding the workings of its elected officials.
The city approved a measure Monday to hold a public forum after it adjourns its council meeting so speakers can avoid being on television. We believe this is wrong.
The state's open meeting law is simple. If a quorum of city council members is present and the council is gathered to listen to its constituents, it is holding a public meeting.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in a St. Cloud case that if a city council is gathered and is passively receiving information relative to their duties as aldermen, the council is engaged in a
public meeting - or a meeting of the City Council.
In Fergus Falls, city council meetings are recorded and broadcast on television. The public comment period needs to be part of that broadcast.
We argue that the city council meeting isn't over if it adjourns and then moves into a comment period - it's moving the meeting into its next phase.
The broadcasting of council meetings - including public comment periods - is an important role played by our public access television
system, PEG Access. It allows the public a view into the workings and decisions of its elected officials and allows are citizens to be informed.
If people are having discussions with the council without the cameras rolling it is prohibiting the public to be informed and creating the equivalent of holding meetings behind closed doors because council members know people generally don't attend their meetings.
We encourage PEG Access to keep the cameras rolling after the city council adjourns so the Fergus Falls public can be informed on all
the city's workings - not just the ones the city wants us to see.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here Here!
Posted by James (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The newspaper should be a leader and sue the city council and city if this actually happens.
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on September 19, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Involve the State Attorney Generals Office. But then with the constant, 'another 90 days, another 60 days , another 30 days' as the laissez-faire attitude continues with the City Council and the little information 'for preservation of the sales integrity' that the RTC is swaddled in fits the bill. Funny they have not taken this action sooner. In making any service or function of government less transparent it is in my opinion a deliberate action to pervert the processes that are intended to allow our seeing its operations. Be there seeing it as good or bad, we as the sovereign people require an open and transparent elected body, if they cannot see that and will not adhere to that for duty, honor or simple tradition. Those individuals most be removed by election or other government process. Perhaps being law reminded that in the end there powers are derived from a mandate set by us, the people.
Posted by daveroche (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The FF Journal editorial staff obviously was not watching the proceedings of the council as they formulated this new policy. The council will have two "forum" periods...one televised and one not. They seem to be honoring a citizens "right" to not be televised. Your misleading editorial has gotten several citizens up on their soapboxes...maybe they should get off of the couch and attend one of the meetings and exercise more than their "rights".
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on September 20, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no right to not be televised. And as this is all information presented in conjunction with government proceedings we have every right to ask that such meetings be shown to the public. Addressing to the problems of individuals always seemingly thinking that someone saying something should be changed without having to actually present themselves as the person in a manner that is themselves complaining makes no sense. We are pointing out after reading a newspaper article that all concerns in the matters of government should and are to be made available as public record if such device, be it written or video be used.
Posted by FFWoman (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A public comment is a public comment. If it's verbally stated at a council meeting--or forum afterwards, it shouldn't matter to the person speaking whether it is televised or not. If the speaker isn't comfortable with everybody hearing it over TV, I would have to wonder why. Is it just nervousness when a camera is on them or is it that they are afraid that they have to take responsibility for what they say? Personally, I'm always interested to hear all sides of the issue and would hope everyone would be willing to share their opinion.
Posted by metasonics (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm in favor of keeping all of the meetings completely public.
Jamie Cooper
Posted by Ole_Potato (anonymous) on September 22, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would that be the local Y-E-S 'man'?
"Yes Yes Yes, that's me, vote for me, me, me, me.....Until I get elected then....see above...me me me, and what's in it for ME?"
Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on September 23, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The newspaper is right here. These meetings should all be public, and therefore televised. If someone doesn't have the courage to state their opinion in a forum accessible by the rest of the public, then it's not an opinion that deserves to be heard.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)