PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW SUFFERS SETBACK

Preamble to the Colorado Open Meetings law: It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.

I’m afraid that these words were taken in vain last week in Boulder County District Court where Judge Roxanne Bailin failed to rule on the crux of a complaint lodged by the Longmont Times-Call and reporter Rachel Carter that a substantial discussion of nonexempt topics and adoption of public policy had unlawfully occurred during a June 23 executive session of the Longmont City Council which, if true, would render any action therein null and void.

The local newspaper, defending the public’s right to know, offered evidence that indicated the council indeed had taken a “straw vote” behind closed doors, was led to believe the session was recorded, and asked the court to review the tapes for verification. But there were no tapes, which is permissible under the attorney-client exemption. City attorney Eugene Mei nonetheless fought to prevent release of the “audio recording” of the June 23 session and referred to it twice later in communications with the court. Knowing all along there was no recording, Mei finally presented to the court a tape that had nothing on it to review except the required pre-secret meeting announcement. Instead of sanctioning the city attorney for playing games, Bailin merely called the city’s position “mystifying” and left the allegation of forming public policy in secrecy hanging in the wind.

Attorney-client communications behind closed doors are exempt; forming public policy is not. Unfortunately this half-baked outcome opens the door wide for all local governments in the state to now declare every executive session attorney-client privileged, with policy-making off limits to the press and public.

CITY BUDGET FOR LEGAL SERVICES SPIRALS UPWARD

Recession-induced revenue problems have forced the Longmont City Council, like other fiscally responsible governments across the nation, to trim spending and allow for only tiny increases, if any, in the 2010 budget. In Longmont City Hall, this tightening of the purse strings seems to have hit almost every department except one: that of the City Attorney, which will get a whopping 11 percent increase of $90,797 next year, according to city budget documents.

The total budget for the city’s legal department in 2008, under attorney Clay Douglas, was $813,271. In 2009, it was even a tad less, at $812,166. And, yes, Douglas was busy with litigation too.

The 2010 budget for this department, under the direction of newly hired attorney Eugene Mei, has skyrocketed to $902,963.

Details in the city’s 2010 budget document show all of the $90,797 increase is allocated to “Professional and Contracted Services.” This indicates that despite the fact that the city already hires a legal staff of five (city attorney, deputy city attorney, plus three assistant city attorneys), the city plans to allow Mei to step up the hiring of outside counsel in 2010. What for, other than to harass a church’s development project, is a relevant question from taxpayers whose budgets are also thin.

An example of bringing in expensive “outside counsel” when there appeared no pressing reason to do so, was the hiring of an attorney to oversee the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act hearings. Surely, someone from the City Attorney’s department should have been able, and available, to offer advice to the city election committee, if need be.

If Longmont is going to become dependant on hiring outside counsel, as seems to be the trend, then the city might consider outsourcing its entire legal department services, as other cities have done, by inviting law firms to bid for the contract and appointing the winner.