The recent troopergate report came out and Sarah Palin stated that the report fully exonerated her. You read the report and you see that it states that she did violate the law and what she did was unethical. So refer to the report, and claim the oppisate of what it says.
In today's Camera Matt Applebaum does the same on Question 2-B.
Question 2B, allowing executive sessions, is a very hard sell, as it should be. Who, after all, prefers closed-door meetings to completely open and transparent government? And hasn't our prohibition on such meetings served us well for decades? Yes, until you look more closely. Because councils do need to sometimes meet privately to discuss negotiations, personnel matters, security issues, etc. -- and indeed Boulder's councils have done just that. It's just that you don't know about it. We troop into the city attorney's office, two by two, and whisper sweet secrets. No notice is given, no records kept, and no council discussion held, giving staff great control. By contrast, executive sessions would require approval, in public, by a 2/3 vote of council, minutes/recordings would be made, and council members would get to hear their colleagues' opinions. [bold added]
Now, how can he claim the minutes/recordings will be made. Well the question says "Executive sessions will only be held in conformity with locally enacted procedural rules that are at least as restrictive as those set forth in the laws of the state of Colorado". Ok, what exactly are those rules?
Title 24, Article 6, section D reads in full: "No portion of the record of an executive session of a state public body shall be open for public inspection or subject to discovery in any administrative or judicial proceeding, except upon the consent of the state public body or as provided in sub-subparagraph (C) of this subparagraph (I) and section 24-72-204 (5.5)."
Ok, lets give Matt credit for being technically correct in what he said. The executive sessions will be recorded. However, no one will be allowed to view those recordings. So the end result is not the impression Matt gives as no one will ever be able to view those recordings. They might as well not be recorded since they will never be played back.
We're being sold a pig in a poke here folks. This question will give the Council the ability to meet in secret and we will never know what they actually discussed there. We need to vote no on 2-B and have the council come back with a proposal where the records are made public after 90 days.
Even Matt Applebaum indirectly validates the need for the public release as he is claiming the recording of the sessions as a reason why it is ok to hold them. And Matt, if you have nothing to hide, there is no reason not to make them public after 90 days.
