That’s the question behind the balloon sent up in today’s Advocate from Newark Ways and Means Committee. “Without additional funding, the future of televised Newark City Council meetings is uncertain,” the balloon said.
What city council is asking is: Do we have to remain in public view, or will citizens allow us to return to the shadows?
While council could easily provide television coverage of its meetings for very little investment, it continues to make it sound like a big challenge because it still searches for an out.
I wrote about the need for televised meetings many times before it happened. June 21, 2007 I wrote “Council ignores chance for opening government to citizens.” If you go there, you’ll also find links from 5/14/07 and 4/19/07 that give more background.
You’ll also find an off-putting statement by Councilman Uible about the prospect of Council’s coming into the sunshine, along with a statement from then-Council President Marc Guthrie urging Council to step out of the shadows with televised meetings.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are the citizens welcome to attend council meetings? If so, I don't see how this represents a desire to decrease transparency.
ReplyDeleteMany citizens can observe Council only via the cablecasts because of travel requirements, evening conflicts, etc. But surely more people "attend" via TV because of the convenience, thereby getting a more detailed understanding of their government's activities, who represents them, and how they contribute or fail to contribute because all they have to do is turn on the TV, not make a trip downtown. By limiting convenience, you limit transparency.
ReplyDeleteI just discovered your blog this past weekend and I am glad that there are are other people who care about this town and what is best for the people of Newark. I just wanted to make sure you know that there is no intended malice in anything I will comment on, just the desire for good conversation about our town or other subjects you write about. I know that we have never met so I just wanted to allay any misconceptions that anonymity and this medium present.
ReplyDeleteI should have been clearer in my original comment because I do see how it represents a decrease in transparency. I don't beleive it necessarily means a retreat into the shadows as you wrote.
To what end and to what cost should government offer conveniences?
Is your last sentence intended in response to this specific case or generally?
David, I try not to read malice into any comment, at least at the beginning. Thanks for the confirmation. As for your questions, I’m not sure there is an answer to the former, except something useless like: as much or as little as taxpayers want and are willing to pay for.
ReplyDelete“By limiting convenience, you limit transparency.” This refers to the idea of useful transparency. If someone can gather information by watching television or by use of a home computer the ease of access makes the info more transparent than if one is forced to sit through a meeting or to use the Freedom of Information Act to pry it loose.
There are degrees of transparency based on the degree of willingness to share information - or determination to hide information - by government - or whomever.