We need action, not political hype about the Sunshine Law

Whether or not the state Sunshine Law was violated by certain Newark City Council members is the subject of an Advocate report, "Meeting might have violated Sunshine Law," that said: "The February 2006 meeting at Kraner's New Albany office included David Rhodes, Doug Marmie and John Uible, who were and remain members of council's five-person Economic Development Committee. They also are chairmen of the Finance, Capital Improvements and Economic Development committees."

and ..

"Uible (said) the meeting was informational but Kraner briefly touched on some key issues for the future.

"I think he just mentioned he would want to talk to us about annexation of some of that land, particularly in the Newark School District, but we didn't talk a lot about that," Uible said. "He wanted to see if we would be supportive of this. He didn't want City Council opposing (what Kraner and administration wanted)."

The Advocate followed with an editorial "City's view of Sunshine Laws is a bit cloudy" which said "The city's law director disagrees but we believe a meeting between members of a Newark City Council committee and developer Bill Kraner was a clear violation of at least the spirit, and likely the letter, of the state's Sunshine Laws."

The city law director, Doug Sassen, responded to that with a guest column entitled: "Sunshine Law is taken seriously and applied liberally in Newark"

Mr. Sassen defended his inactivity regarding the meeting in question with this statement: "In the case of the February 2006 meeting with developer Williams Kraner referenced in the editorial, it is important to note that the law director's office, and presumably the Advocate as well, was not aware of the meeting until the summer of 2007, well more than one year later. As a result, the actual facts of what occurred at that meeting remain uncertain, hence the opportunity for reasonable minds to differ as to whether a violation of the Sunshine Law might have occurred.

"The editorial noted, 'majorities of any committee cannot gather for discussion of city business.' Because the facts are unclear, did we know then, and do we know now, whether 'city business' was 'discussed'?"

It is informative that Mr. Sassen never mentions in his rebuttal whether he actually asked anybody about the facts of this case. If he did, and if he got stonewalled, this would be significant. If he didn't ask anybody, then this is even more significant.

Mr. Sassen said, "... we are making every effort to ensure full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law by all members of City Council and the Administration." He never said what's changed, or going to change.

Mr. Sassen does, however, take great pains to make it seem as though he is partnering with Marc Guthrie in pursuit of open government. He says, for instance, "Marc and I work well together and have taken an aggressive, unified approach to safeguarding the right of public access to all public meetings." This is the first time I'd heard of such a partnership, and I would be interested in reading exactly what Mr. Sassen's contributions have been to such a partnership.

The New Albany thing is not going to go away by blowing smoke at it. Citizens want to know exactly what questions about this meeting were asked of whom. Citizens want to know why it seems impossible to get that information. Citizens want to know what's going to happen if the same thing occurs in the future. Citizens want to know what the law director intends to do about e-mailed cyber meetings.

More political hype doesn't get it. Citizens need the law director's specific plan for how he is going to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law.