Let’s examine what we do know regarding the leaked Reckman email of December 6, 2007:
The following is a quote from the first letter of inquiry Pepyne sent to Reckman:
"Deliberation outside of an open meeting, including deliberation in serial fashion or through an intermediary, is prohibited."
According to the Gazette, "We asked him (Reckman) what discussions he had," said Pepyne by phone on Monday. It is not clear whether this constitutes the entire scope of the investigation. If so, an appeal might be warranted.
Reckman acknowledges that he communicated with a quorum of council members. He also acknowledges that he spoke with Narkewicz regarding a change in language to the Best Practices resolution. Reckman’s leaked email suggests that Narkewicz arranged for M. LaBarge to bring forth an amendment, an amendment that the public was not aware of and had no opportunity to weigh in on. Reckman further acknowledges that he contacted Bardsley and relayed to him the opinions of a quorum of council members. That indicates to me that a serial deliberation via intermediary occurred.
This goes beyond the simplistic notion that councilors received an email and hit "reply all." Moreover, the judiciary is not perfect contrary to what some might believe. People classified as experts make mistakes just like the rest of us. We have to look no further than the U.S. Supreme Court installing George Bush as president after a contested election as proof of that. Check this out from Common Cause here:
"Open Meeting Battle – Common Cause
Adopted in a wave of Watergate scandal-inspired reforms in 1975, the Open Meeting Law remains a legal battlefield in the fight over government openness – with fresh skirmishes breaking out seemingly every week.
Increasingly, the popularity of new information technology, from e-mails and Blackberries to teleconferencing gear, is adding a new dimension to the issue by making it easier for government officials to make decisions without public knowledge.
"Where there’s a will, there’s a way," said Pamela J. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause, a government watchdog group."
Check this out from the League of Women Voters here:
The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
"When to Complain About Violations
Here are some of the situations that should prompt an immediate, formal complaint: potential violations relating to an issue of great consequence, a pattern of excluding the public, inadequate records, inadequate bookkeeping, and when the clout of a public prosecutor or the courts is needed to settle the issue. When the situation is serious, it is better to complain repeatedly than to store up a list of potential violations.
The open meeting law and the public information act have been a tremendous asset for citizens, the press, and civic organizations. These laws not only empower the public, but also increase understanding of government. However, the benefits of increased accountability of public officials and public information only accrue when the public is watching."
For a local example, the Gazette is appealing to the state Public Records Division Pepyne’s ruling that the minutes of meetings of Forbes Library Trustees are not subject to Open Meeting Law provisions because they do not constitute a governmental body in her view. This despite the fact that Forbes receives taxpayer funding. I for one am grateful to the Gazette for pursuing such an appeal, regardless of the outcome. If not for some members of the media and concerned citizens, government officials will act with impunity.
Of course in matters of appeal it is important to ask, who will this harm and who will this help? In this case those questions remain to be answered.
