A new policy, passed without a clear purpose, leaves residents
and the Council in the dark about what’s required to report
Prescribing itself a massive dose of psychological feel-good medicine, the Gilroy City Council has swallowed a lawyer-friendly placebo with its shiny new policy entitled “Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications.”
With Mayor Al Pinheiro absent, the vote came 4-2. Only Councilman Russ Valiquette and Craig Gartman, the dissenters, don’t feel better. Everyone else is patting themselves on the back and enjoying the magical Land of Oz.
However well intentioned, the “Ex-parte Communication” policy, unfortunately, is a ruse. There are no repercussions, no clear reporting requirements per se and enough gray areas to keep a sea of lawyers afloat in cash cases for decades.
Consider the second paragraph: “An “ex-parte-communication” occurs when a City councilmember, Commissioner or Boardmember (sic) receives information from a member of the public outside of a public meeting concerning a matter to be heard by the City Council, Commission or Board.”
Follow the letter of the new city policy in that paragraph and the results are twofold:
– Councilmembers grocery shopping trips just became shorter by two-thirds and
– A friendly chat with your local representative just became a discloseable item for the council agenda.
Yeah, yeah … we know that’s not how “it’s supposed to work.” The fact remains, that’s what the policy says. It’s there in black and white, and it will have a chilling effect on contact with the public.
If the true aim of this policy is to disclose what monied interests – most notably developers – are talking to Councilmembers about agenda items, then the Council should have made clear its intent and sent it back to the attorneys to waste more taxpayer money for a policy revision. That way we’d have something clear, a policy that spelled out exactly what councilmembers are required to report, why and what the consequences would be for failure to report.
What Gilroy has now, instead, is a policy by the lawyers for the lawyers, passed by a Council apparently blind to its folly.
And another policy quibble: Forbidding Councilmembers to speak publicly in open session before the city’s boards and commissions, and presumably vice versa, is as baffling.
Perhaps there is a bit of good news that will come of this. Presumably Mayor Al Pinheiro’s discussions with his fellow members on the Bonfante Gardens board of directors constitute ex-parte communication. At last, the Council can demand to hear what’s really going on at those meetings.
In closing, we offer this quote: “A lawyer’s relationship to justice and wisdom is on par with a piano tuner’s relationship to a concert. He neither composes the music, nor interprets it – he merely keeps the machinery running.”
City Councilmembers should keep that in mind when they’re composing our city’s future. the dissenters, don’t feel better. Everyone else is patting themselves on the back and enjoying the magical Land of Oz.
However well intentioned, the “Ex-parte Communication” policy, unfortunately, is a ruse. There are no repercussions, no clear reporting requirements per se and enough gray areas to keep a sea of lawyers afloat in cash cases for decades.
Consider the second paragraph: “An ‘ex-parte-communication’ occurs when a City Councilmember, Commissioner or Boardmember (sic) receives information from a member of the public outside of a public meeting concerning a matter to be heard by the City Council, Commission or Board.”
Follow the letter of the new city policy in that paragraph and the results are twofold:
n Councilmember’s grocery shopping trips just became shorter by two-thirds.
n A friendly chat with your local representative just became a reportable item for the council agenda.
Yeah, yeah … we know that’s not how “it’s supposed to work.” The fact remains, that’s what the policy says. It’s there in black and white, and it will have a chilling effect on contact with the public.
If the true aim of this policy is to disclose what monied interests – most notably developers – are talking to Councilmembers about agenda items, then the Council should have made clear its intent and sent it back to the attorneys to waste more taxpayer money for a policy revision. That way we’d have something understandable, a policy that spelled out exactly what councilmembers are required to report, why and what the consequences would be for failure to do so.
Instead, Gilroy has a policy by the lawyers for the lawyers, passed by a Council apparently blind to its folly.
And another policy quibble: Forbidding Councilmembers to speak publicly in open session before the city’s boards and commissions, and presumably vice versa, is shortsighted.
Perhaps there is a bit of good news. Presumably, Mayor Pinheiro’s discussions with his cohorts on the Bonfante Gardens board of directors constitute ex-parte communication. At last, the Council can demand to hear what’s really going on at those meetings.
In closing, we offer this quote: “A lawyer’s relationship to justice and wisdom is on par with a piano tuner’s relationship to a concert. He neither composes the music, nor interprets it – he merely keeps the machinery running.”
City Councilmembers should keep that in mind when they’re composing our city’s future.
