City argument on video does not hold water

People don’t need polish — they need to see government in action

In an April Editor’s Notebook column in the Yuma Sun, I commented that video provides an opportunity for residents to be informed about government, even if they can’t attend government meetings.

The statement was in reference to a City of Yuma special work session about the city budget. The meeting was open to the public, and if the public was unable to attend, the city had audio recordings available. However, I noted that it was a missed opportunity to use video, which allows people to get the full experience of the situation.

Then I opened up this month’s edition of YumaBIZ, the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce’s newsletter, and noticed the city’s column addressing my column.

In it, the city notes that in roundtable meetings such as the budget, those participating need to be able to deliberate freely, and that televising the meeting can hinder that concept. “Once the discussions designed to lead up to important and sometimes new or creative actions are assumed to become subject to widespread distribution and dissemination, it changes the very nature of those discussions, and can inhibit risk-taking that may be necessary to achieve a needed result,” the city wrote.

The city also notes, “In the case of the Yuma City Council, it is important to remember that members are essentially volunteers,” and may not be fully versed in each department’s needs or services.

The city continues that the council members need to be able to feel free to ask questions, and “they need an environment free from pressure to perform well or ‘look good’ in front of a mass audience of watching constituents.”

City council members were elected by this community to represent the community as a whole. They aren’t expected to “look good” — if they were polished Washington, D.C., politicians, I would be worried. And if they are fearful to ask questions and take risks in meetings, why are they serving on council? They were elected to make a difference — if video might inhibit risk-taking, as the city suggests, that doesn’t bode well for regular council meetings and work sessions, does it?

People should have a reasonable expectation to see their council in action, brainstorming for the good of the community. These meetings are open to the public, and should not matter if video is a part of the process. Video can help build a transparent government, offer better communication, and improve our community.

Witnessing council members ask questions is a clear indication that they are trying to make the best decisions for the city — isn’t that the goal?

The city’s column also discusses executive session, which by law is closed to the public, and reserved for specific subjects. That’s fine, and governed by Arizona law.

Yet the city goes on to note, “While deliberation is obviously private in an executive session, state law places limits on what can be discussed there. Thus, some deliberation must take place in a work session.”

I’m not sure what the implication is in that statement, but let’s be clear.

The more conversations that happen in the public eye for any government entity, including the city, the better — and televising said meetings boosts accessibility for every member of the community.

As far as I’m concerned, any meeting that the public can attend should have a video component, period.

If you agree, give city hall a call, and let them know, too.