City Desk

Bowser Moves to Reform D.C. Open Meetings Law

0315swlogoUPDATED 3/16, 11:15 A.M.

This week is Sunshine Week, a "national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information."

Today, Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser announced a step toward those ends, unveiling a bill to strengthen the city's open-meetings law.

Currently, the law only requires meeting where "official action" is taken to be opened to the public. And that, invariably, has come to meet a meeting where a vote is taken—even if all the details on what's being voted on has been hashed out in advance behind closed doors.

That is, for instance, what happened last summer, when the council was charged with closing a sizable gap in the 2010 city budget.

To get the job done in late July, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray gathered his colleagues and staff in a Wilson Building conference room, where they debated what programs would be cut and what taxes would be raised. Press was allowed in the room, but the general public was not. With members in general agreement, the plan was adopted—the "official action"—by the council in a subsequent public meeting in the council chamber.

The Bowser bill makes it plain: "The public policy of the District of Columbia is that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the actions of those who represent them. Formation of public policy and conduct of public business shall not occur in secret."

Specifically, the public would have a right "to be present at all meetings of public bodies that advise or determine how the public's business will be carried out, and to witness all phases of policy formulation and decision-making, including information-gathering, discussion, deliberation, and resolution." And a meeting is defined as any gathering of a quorum of the council or other policymaking body. Chance meetings and social occasions are excepted "unless it is held to evade the letter or spirit of this section."

Further exceptions are in the bill for collective bargaining sessions, legal consultations, certain business negotiations, meetings concerning criminal investigations, and others. To enforce the law, citizens would be able to sue in Superior Court.

This is not the first attempt at public-meeting reform. In 2006, with then-Council Chairman Linda Cropp under fire for her institution of closed-door pre-legislative meeting breakfasts, Councilmembers Kathy Patterson and Vincent Orange introduced an open-meetings bill. But colleagues—members Carol Schwartz and Jack Evans and Jim Graham prime among them—led opposition to the bill, saying it would be burdensome for policymakers.

The council ended up voting 7 to 6 to send the bill back to committee, essentially killing it. Gray, as Ward 7 councilmember, cast the deciding vote.

UPDATE, 5:10 P.M.: Graham spokesperson Brian DeBose calls to challenge LL's assertion that Graham was a prime opponent of the Orange/Patterson bill. "At every instance when this bill came before the council in committee and in legislative session, Jim Graham voted in favor of it," DeBose says—including a vote against its recommittal.

LL drew his characterization from Graham's support of an amendment, as reported in the Washington Post, of an amendment that sought to redefine "meeting" to exclude "general discussions among members of a public body" where "there is no intention for the discussion to lead to an official action." That amendment, Patterson said at the time, "guts the bill."

Graham has yet to take a position on Bowser's bill, DeBose says.

UPDATE, 5:18 P.M.: Courtesy of DeBose, here is the roll call on the recommittal vote. Voting yes were Sharon Ambrose, Marion Barry, Kwame Brown, Jack Evans, Vincent Gray, Phil Mendelson, Carol Schwartz; noes were David Catania, Cropp, Adrian Fenty, Graham, Orange, Patterson.

UPDATE, 3/16, 11:15 A.M.: This morning, Bowser officially introduced her bill; Kwame Brown co-introduced. Co-sponsoring are: Michael Brown, Catania, Graham, Gray, Harry Thomas Jr., and Tommy Wells. Kudos especially to Kwame Brown and Gray for standing up where they didn't in 2006. May they see the bill through.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Comments

  1. #1

    Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser works for and serve King Adrian Malik Fenty and not the voters in Ward 4.

  2. #2

    I've never been very much into politics before, but I have to say that I like the idea that elected officials can't make closed door deals. When you clean up the politics...and hopefully improve the quality of life for local residents (in the process)...people usually flock to the city in question. The prospects look good for my business, too.

  3. #3

    You know I generally do not agree with much of what CM Bowser does, however as long as the bill doesnt go overboard like whats in the state of Florida I support it. She has been rather active lately, and I like the fact that as a legislator she is actually attempting to legislate. She is moving into the "grown up" section of the council with Mendo & Cheh!

  4. Ward One Resident
    #4

    What? Jim Graham opposing a previous bill on open meetings....shocking. Simply shocking. Oh yeah and water is wet.

  5. #5

    bravo to councilmember bowser. this is a needed reform for this city (do you think the earmark scandals of the last few years would have been quite as large with more sunshine? i doubt it.)

  6. #6

    Yes, Gray as ward 7 councilmember cast the deciding vote in 2006, killing the bill. WAPO and most other media strongly criticized Gray's vote, especially because he ran for council chair that same year. Gray told WAPO back then that he had only a technical objection to the '06 bill, and that he intended to pass a better version once he became council chair. Well, he didn't, and as LL said recently, that failure is a black mark on Gray's record.

    Hat's off to CM Bowser.

  7. #7

    Ah, yes... it must be an election year.

    After CM Bowser did the bidding of the Mayor and his supporters from the utility companies by ousting the superb People's Counsel, Betty Noel, maybe she feels a tad guilty.

    And she ought to... when your utility bills shoot through the roof, just remember who's responsible for pushing Noel out.

    Oh, and Mr. Open Government Vincent Orange... he's now a lobbyist for PEPCO.

  8. #8

    Anonymous, you are correct about Princess Bowser did King Fenty's request by ousting Ward 4 resident, People's Counsel, Betty Noel. Ms. Noel was a fighter for the D.C. residents against the utility companies. Fenty wanted to tax D.C. residents for the use of street lights to make up for the $666 deficit the city is facing.

    Ms. Noel was well liked and supported by many D.C. residents. Muriel is hated or dislike by many Ward 4 voters. You are correct about Vincent Orange. He's a pimp now for PEPCO. D.C. residents/voters are doomed by the idiots running the city at the Wilson Building.

  9. #9

    Hi there... This Bowser move had me thinking...she sure seems to be coming into her our self as a woman. I see very little articles about her. What is she about besides the Fenty-link? She represents the younger Gen X and would like to know what kind of groups she represents or how to be more involved with her works. She comes across as a really fresh and all-american face in politics. I think I am a starting to like her.
    Any counterpoints or reasons why I should be wary are welcomed. So far, she seems/appears clean.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...