April 4, 2014 at 3:46 p.m.
Open meetings complaint filed against room tax committee
Open meetings complaint filed against room tax committee
City alderman Alex Young filed the complaint Wednesday, the day of the meeting in question. According to Young's complaint, the committee met at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday but notice of the meeting had been sent out early Tuesday afternoon - less than the 24 hours required under the state's open meetings law.
Young said he's not accusing the committee, which oversees the distribution of room tax revenue, of purposely skirting the law in an attempt to do something behind closed doors. He said the reason for filing the complaint is to ensure there are no future issues.
He also noted he's concerned that some members of the committee do not appear to think it should fall under the requirements of open meetings law. He said he believes that is because of the committee's ties to the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce. While most of the committee members are affiliated with the chamber, by ordinance the committee is an official city entity. There are two voting members representing the city - Mayor Dick Johns and Mark Pelletier, chairman of the finance committee. In the complaint, Young references an email exchange in which Pelletier warned others that 24-hour notice had not been given. The meeting occurred as scheduled anyway. Young said the proper response would have been to set a new date. He said he perceived a "cavalier attitude" about open meetings requirements when the 24-hour notice issue was brought up.
"I didn't file this complaint out of any ill will. I'm not making any allegations that the committee is doing anything sneaky," Young said. "I just think there was this cavalier attitude about open meetings requirements. I realize it's inconvenient to reschedule a meeting, but inconvenience is not a defense."
At one time Young served as an alternate on the committee which is why he remains on the email list for receiving meeting notices and agendas. He said he was privy to the email exchange in which Pelletier brought up the 24-hour notice issue and recommended the meeting be rescheduled.
"If this meeting takes place I not only will be unable to attend but I will recommend all other city officials to not attend also," Pelletier wrote in the email. "I have seen this happen before and (it) ends up in the DA's office. I realize it is a technicality but open meeting laws are very strict. I officially protest this meeting taking place."
In response to that email, the chamber's executive director Dana DeMet wrote that, after consulting with others about the issue, the meeting would go on as scheduled. He did note that in the future it would be in the committee's best interest to adhere to the 24-hour notice requirement.
Pelletier said he and Johns chose not to attend the meeting. City Administrator Blaine Oborn attended the meeting but he is a non-voting member.
In the four years he has served on the committee, Pelletier said this is the first time an open meetings issue has occurred. He said agendas are typically sent out days in advance.
"This time nothing came and suddenly it was April 1 and I get an email about 22 hours before the meeting," Pelletier said. "I recommended a different time and day. I was protesting the meeting because it shouldn't happen. When you're dealing with tax dollars, you need transparency. That's all there is to it."
Pelletier said he's not sure where - or even if - committee agendas have been physically posted in the past. He said the meetings have always been treated as open to the public though, and he thought other members were clear that the committee was required to follow state open meetings requirements.
"There have been guests at the meetings in the past. They're totally open meetings," Pelletier said. "With the room tax revenue we're dealing with they have to be. It's still tax collected. It doesn't matter if it's property tax or room tax. There's been people in the past who have come before the committee to make a proposal about spending room tax on certain things. It's always been an open door policy so, in my mind, it's always been an open meeting."
Young said the state law requiring 24-hour notice is only part of the problem. He said the committee should actually be providing five days notice of meetings. That is a provision spelled out in the committee's contract with the city.
"The clerical work for the committee has always been done outside City Hall. It's been done by the chamber," Young said. "I believe there was a concern that this work get done in a timely manner. That's why the five-day provision was inserted. What concerns me the most about this is that it sort of looks to me like they had a cavalier attitude to the open meetings law and their contractual obligations."
Young said yet another reason for his filing of the complaint is a room tax-related bill that has been introduced in the Legislature. Under the bill, municipalities that collect a room tax would have less authority over how that money is spent. Instead, more control would be given to tourism entities such as chambers of commerce. Young said the issue with the bill is transparency. It takes room tax revenue away from local governments that are required by law to be transparent, and puts it in the hands of organizations that don't have to abide by those same rules. Young said he doesn't think the bill, if passed, would greatly impact Rhinelander because the city has a good working relationship with the chamber. If, however, the Rhinelander Tourism Marketing Committee doesn't believe it has to follow open meetings law, Young said it shows the importance of defeating that bill.
"My point is if they are subject to open meetings law, good, they have to be transparent. If they aren't, we have to ensure this bill doesn't pass so things stay transparent," Young said. "This sort of attitude to transparency and openness bothers me. I have no indication that they've tried to do anything in a secretive, closed way. I don't think we have any problems with the way the room tax situation is being handled. It's just the cavalier attitude and the precedent that's an issue."
Oneida County District Attorney Mike Schiek followed up with Young on Thursday. He said he will be forwarding the matter on to the Rhinelander Police Department to be investigated.
"Once I have that report I can make an informed decision on what the next step will be," Schiek said.
Schiek said he hasn't yet reviewed the city ordinance that Young says created the committee. If that's indeed the case - that the committee was formed through a local government ordinance - he said his opinion is that the committee is bound by open meetings requirements. DeMet said Friday morning that he's aware of the complaint but has no further comment unless he's contacted by the DA's office. He did note that the committee is not considered a chamber initiative.
"The chamber's main responsibility is to administer and moderate those meetings and (the committee's) decisions but that's really the only role the chamber has in it," DeMet said.
Pelletier said he's not sure why there was a meeting notification issue this time when there haven't been problems in the past. As for the decision to proceed with the meeting, he said he believes there was some confusion.
"I think the committee followed chamber protocol, but this is not a chamber committee," Pelletier said.
He said it's unfortunate that it has led to the filing of a complaint with the DA's office, but hopes it becomes a learning lesson.
"I hope so. I hope that's all it is," Pelletier said. "The committee wasn't trying anything and I warned them because I didn't want anyone on the committee to be in trouble. The 24-hour rule has to be in place because with tax dollars you have to be as transparent as possible. If you have a closed meeting people think you're doing something wrong and this committee wasn't doing anything wrong."
Kyle Rogers may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.