behind closed doors

Its a harrowing thought that these days, an exciting news story for me involves a town government possibly talking about things they shouldn't in closed session: things like grant applications. When did these things begin to pique my interest?

I tried to explain why I was finally handed something interesting to write about to my friends last weekend. As I laid out the details, I could see my friends' eyes glaze over: they had mentally checked out. They were no longer listening, but merely waiting for me to stop talking. One of them then compared me to the nameless, faceless teachers in a Peanuts cartoon, whose verbal output was a consistently unintelligible noise (while the noise is instantly recognizable when spoken, I find it hard to replicate in written words).



How do I explain that what I was assigned to write about was interesting? I tend to dismiss most of what I right in my summations of these torturous board of commissioners meetings as trivial and most certainly yawn-inducing. Endless people searching for exceptions to zoning ordinances so they can save $5,000 less on their million dollar construction project. Occasionally though the boards must talk about private matters, such as personnel issues or lawsuits, so they go into closed session. The public cannot know what goes on in closed session, until the matters discussed are no longer sensitive, at which point the closed session minutes are released.

Another time when closed session is needed is when the town is considering purchasing property. They can discuss the matter in closed session in order to protect their bid on the property. However the decision to use any municipal funds cannot be made in closed session; the public should know how the money is always being spent.

So recently we receive a press release from the state agency that has just approved a grant for one of our local governments. Further research into corresponding project reveals that it is contingent upon another sizable grant as well as matching funds from that government. Funny how that town had never to this point mentioned this project in their board meetings, despite having given approval for these grant applications.

So then the town announced support of the second grant recently, and suddenly the dollar amounts involved in the project were different (only four days later). The property owner was now asking for less than before, therefore the second grant would be for significantly less, and now the entire project could be funded without the town providing additional funds. Funny how that works.

This park project that should now be funded, should benefit the community. Thus the dilemma is: if a governing body conspires to do something away from the public eye, is it justified if the end result is beneficial? Who decided if the ultimate goal was beneficial or not?

I'm reminded of a similar ethics argument existing in the movie Gone Baby Gone. Should one who is charged with upholding the law, knowingly break the law to do what they think is right?

I don't tend to like politics, but seeing as I am technically the government reporter at this newspaper at which I work, I figure it was only a matter of time before I started rolling around in these sorts of issues. I can't promise I won't blog about politics in the future, but I sure hope my next political-themed rant is a long way off.