Secret Meetings? Lack of Public Disclosure?

A neighbor just sent the following comments to us:

Secret Meetings? Lack of Public Disclosure?

At the February 12th Children’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, CAC member Bob Lucas from View Ridge offered the following motion:

“I propose that in the future any notes, comments, or actions taken by the Children’s Advisory Committee (CAC) sub-committees be kept in the strictest of confidence until such time that they are formally shared with the full CAC at a formal meeting. This means that sub-committee members, or anyone in attendance at a sub-committee meeting is prevented from discussing the contents of such meeting(s) with members of the general public, or the press.

Once the formal presentation to the full CAC has been made members are free to make comment.

It is also recommended that sub-committee meetings be recorded for the preparation of formal notes, or minutes for approval by the sub-committee members.”

With no understanding of the state’s Public Records Act or the Open Public Meetings Act that applies to local advisory committees created by law, the CAC was poised to adopt the motion with a few minor amendments. After the Montlake representative on the CAC raised concerns about the need for an open and transparent process, another CAC member suggested that the motion be tabled. The Department of Neighborhoods person who staffs the committee suggested that advice should be sought from the City’s Law Department prior to voting on Mr. Lucas’s motion. All of this occurred prior to the public comment period.

During the public comment period, concern was expressed about withholding information necessary to allow the public to comment.

This is an extremely important issue that impacts the type of process the CAC will pursue in the future. It is very difficult for citizens and community groups to comment at CAC meetings if there is no advance notice about the specifics of what will be discussed or even a description of the topic listed on the CAC agenda item distributed prior to the evening of the meeting. In this case, the CAC was at a major disadvantage because it had no notice about the View Ridge motion and no background information about the applicable law. It is especially difficult for Laurelhurst, the major stakeholder in the process, which has consultants onboard to provide technical review and assistance.

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) received a copy of the schematic of the parameters for the alternative developed by the CAC subcommittee shortly after the February 2nd subcommittee meeting. LCC asked questions of individual CAC members and received answers to enable a written comment from its land use consultant at the February 11th meeting. Although Mr. Lucas, who serves on the CAC subcommittee, assisted in briefing the Northeast District Council about the new alternative at its February 7th meeting, he would have preferred that the new alternative be unveiled to the full CAC prior to being released to the public.

Moving Backward

Up until the February 11th CAC meeting, there was general consensus on the committee to reject the four alternatives proposed by Children’s for its expansion that would forever change the character of Laurelhurst and this part of northeast Seattle. Led by the Bryant, citywide rep and one Laurelhurst representative on the committee, the group refused to take those alternatives off the table.

The position statement that was supposed to be developed by the committee was prepared by the chair, the Bryant rep who now appears to be leading the charge to support Children’s. The Department of Neighborhoods staff person provided technical assistance with the statement putting together information from minutes of prior meetings. The statement was distributed at the meeting and committee members were given ten minutes to read it before going through it and making a few changes.

One of the biggest problems with the process is that the CAC does not receive materials from Children’s in advance to enable a thoughtful review prior to making decisions. There is no one to answer technical questions at the meeting and answers provided by Children’s are often evasive or incorrect.