Debates, open and otherwise

Published 10:00 am Saturday, September 16, 2006

Isolationists lament the extent to which our little island attracts the world’s attention, through condominium advertisements in in-flight magazines and glossy lifestyle spreads in “Sunset.” But one is reminded how far outside the world’s gaze we remain, considering how

infrequently we draw the focus of television news crews.

When it does come, the baleful gaze of the camera is usually drawn for all the wrong reasons – lurid crimes, unfortunate deaths, something truly bizarre (the “cheerleaders with ipecac” incident, for those who remember that one), or a hapless tread into a political minefield (like the ill-fated petition to have the Bainbridge City Council de-emphasize local marijuana enforcement). That’s TV news: Nothing airs like dirty laundry, and if it bleeds, it leads.

So, little surprise that cameras and lights descended on the council chambers this week, at the prospect of a politically charged debate over whether to start each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. The merits of that issue are debated elsewhere on this page, but the resonant footnote is the extent to which the issue played out outside the meeting – outside any meeting – in an exchange of emails among councilors.

In public comment, Frederick Scheffler of the American Legion roundly – and quite correctly – criticized the council for conducting its business beyond the public eye; but for the fact that the email exchange was leaked to the area media, no one would have known about it at all.

It’s not the first time council members have been embarrassed by that pesky “Forward” button; during the mayor-council dustups a few years ago, this newspaper periodically found itself the surreptitious recipient of sniping exchanges between the players. But the matter goes far beyond seemliness and personal dignity. Elected officials are bound by law to conduct their affairs in open forums, be they hearings, committee meetings, or other proceedings on the dais – and any discussion of how council meetings themselves should be managed would certainly apply. Recent case law holds that email exchanges among elected officials can in and of themselves constitute public meetings, and the Bainbridge council acknowledged as much in the policy manual it adopted in 2003: “Email communications that are intended to be or are actually shared among four or more City Council members, whether concurrently or serially, must be considered in light of the Open Public Meetings Act. If the intended purpose of the email is to have a discussion that should be held at an open meeting, the electronic discussion should not occur.”

When email exchanges like the Pledge of Allegiance flap see the light of day, it feeds public suspicion and cynicism. If council members are casually debating this issue by email, what else are they debating? It makes you wonder.

Mercifully on Wednesday, decorum and common sense prevailed, the Pledge was dutifully recited, and television news crews hoping for a political car crash went home disappointed. Whatever the episode had to say about public displays of citizenship, it did serve as a reminder that our elected officials are held to a higher standard still – and not just at the start of the meeting.

As we’re at the start of the new school year, perhaps it’s a good time for a “teachable moment” – council members might reacquaint themselves with the law regarding electronic correspondence and the conduct of open meetings. Perhaps they could then – very publicly – foreswear such email exchanges and commit to conducting their debates in the open.

That seems like a pledge they could all take, without reservation.