[ OUR OPINION ]
Dissolving vision teams
would settle sunshine disputeCITY Council members and the Harris administration have been engaged in a petty dispute about whether nonelected advisory vision teams should be subject to the state's open meetings law. The state Office of Information Practices ruled two years ago that they are, but adds that state law needs to be clarified. A better way to deal with the issue is to dissolve the vision teams and transfer their functions to neighborhood boards, which indisputably are subject to public sunshine.
THE ISSUE
The City Council has approved a bill that requires members of city boards and commissions to receive training on the state's open meeting law.
Mayor Harris created the vision teams five years ago to come up with fresh ideas about city projects, giving each team $2 million to bring those ideas to fruition. Budget problems reduced the amounts to $1 million last year, twice that provided to each of the 33 elected neighborhood boards for construction projects.
The vision teams are strange institutions, including some neighborhood board members but otherwise comprised of volunteers who are neither elected nor appointed. The teams lack standard procedures of operation and lines of accountability.
The Office of Information Practices found earlier this year that each of the teams failed to abide by the Sunshine Law for meeting notices and did not record their votes. The office declared in April that, "given the peculiar nature of membership in a vision team," members are subject to the Sunshine Law but only when attending team meetings. The Sunshine Law forbids more than two members of other county or state committees from privately discussing committee business among themselves.
The City Council and administration officials haggled over a proposal that requires members of city boards and commissions, including vision teams, to receive training on how to obey the open meetings law. Harris vetoed the bill last month because of its inclusion of vision teams in open-meeting requirements, and the Council overrode the veto by a 6-3 vote this week.
The notion that city board and commission members need instruction on how to act openly seems a bit ludicrous. Even more curious is the fact that every member of the City Council signed a letter of support for a bill in this year's Legislature that would have exempted counties from the Sunshine Law.
Councilman Rod Tam, who voted to override Harris's veto, submitted written testimony at the Legislature in support of the exemption. He testified that the law makes it "difficult for Council members to attend social functions, cultural events or other non-legislative functions without being in violation of the Sunshine Law."
