**Our campaign is committed to having an Open Government and we agree with the following Beacon News opinion.

July 18th, 2008 - The Beacon News

Openness in government, but in secret

What's wrong with this picture?

The Aurora City Council is considering an ordinance, supposedly aimed at promoting transparency in government, that would set rules for how much money businesses with city contracts can contribute to elected officials or candidates. A three-member committee would determine the merits of any complaint by holding private hearings where witness testimony and evidence would be presented.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and irony of passing a law aimed at minimizing conflicts of interest and the appearance of corruption and cronyism and then keeping the administrative process a secret?

Not only does Mayor Tom Weisner's revised proposal undermine the goal of campaign-finance reform, but such a setup appears to be illegal under the Open Meetings Act. This is another example of elected officials trying to circumvent the law by making up reasons why a body should meet in closed session.

We have up to this point been advocates of limits on campaign contributions for firms doing business with the city, but we can't support the ordinance if it includes a provision for a secret administrative process.

We criticized the Aurora Police Department last year for creating an advisory committee made up of non-elected residents that would give community feedback to the APD on police issues. In that case, we objected based on principle because the panel is not subject to the Open Meetings Act. As an advisory committee, it does not make decisions or report to an elected body. Even so, we said citizen committees meeting in private is a disturbing trend that erodes the public trust.

In this case, however, the administrative body, which would be appointed by and report to the City Council, would be making decisions. That's a very important distinction.

Assistant Chief of Staff Carie Anne Ergo said private hearings would protect candidates from false accusations. Using that line of reasoning, we might as well hold criminal trials behind closed doors, too.

City contracts are a matter of public record. So are campaign contributions. By law, decision-making bodies have to meet in public. And this ordinance was originally proposed to eliminate the perception of back-room deals.

So what are we missing that would justify wrapping the governing process in a shroud of secrecy?

Return to In The News