February 24, 2017 at 2:12 p.m.
The good-old-boy game is getting old
The good-old-boy game is getting old
Actually, county supervisors underwent open-meetings training at the county board meeting only because the district attorney had ordered them to. But why let a good opportunity go to waste.
First, DA Michael Schiek made a mistake and agreed to let the county select the person to lead them in that training. So they hired Lori Lubinsky, not only a lawyer well experienced in fighting open government but a pretty bad one, if her track record in Oneida County is any indication.
At the training, county board chairman Dave Hintz, aka head GOB, sounded completely authentic. He went on about how Lubinsky had raised the board's awareness, and pledged that better awareness and a right attitude would help Oneida County in the future.
Lubinsky sounded pretty good, too. But, as we report on her advice to supervisors in today's paper, her "training" guide is about as sound as the advice she and her team of lawyers gave the sheriff's department last year in the open-records case they lost to us, costing taxpayers more than $50,000.
In other words, the Titanic could float better than this boat.
In the sheriff's department case, this newspaper repeatedly warned the county it would lose, but the county dug in its heels, based on advice from corporation counsel Brian Desmond and the outside legal team, of which Lubinsky was a lead member.
They lost, of course, but their case was really doomed after they changed their minds about multiple records they had denied, and decided they were public records after all. They toasted their own case with an admission that robbed all the records of any serious legal exemption.
That was then, but on Tuesday Lubinsky was again sailing a ship full of supervisors right to the bottom of the open meetings sea.
When it comes to defining a meeting, for example, Lubinsky correctly noted that you need to have a majority of members of a governmental body present to have a postable meeting, and that it still wasn't really a government meeting unless you conducted government business.
So that means a majority of a committee can hang out together in a bar, or have lunch, and they don't have to post the meeting; they just have to not discuss any public business.
OK. But she completely left out the part where those social gatherings are by law presumed to be official meetings subject to posting requirements. And it's on the shoulders of those government officials to prove no public business or discussion went on if someone challenges their little social gathering at the Good Old Boy Pub.
Without warning supervisors of that legal presumption, Lubinsky led county officials down yet another primrose path, almost encouraging them to socialize without worry of telling the public. It's irresponsible advice, and opens the board to legal challenges and violations.
It's even worse advice if you are an open-government advocate. Just how long do you think it will take the good old boys to realize - if they don't have to post social gatherings - that they can start hold "social gatherings" that are really designed to conduct secret government business.
The problem is not the occasional lunch between two board members or attending a wedding; stuff like that is always going to happen. The problem comes with contrived social gatherings - holiday parties, periodic social lunches, weekly drinks at the pub - routine "social gatherings" that become an excuse to conduct business.
Who isn't going to start talking about things if such periodic meetings are held? And, despite what Lubinsky said, that honest officials will say, 'Hey, we can't talk about this,' talking is the very reason those routine social gatherings would be held.
They shouldn't be held, and, if they are, they should be posted to keep government officials honest.
Lubinsky also advised only posting the statute number and language for the reason a government body can convene in closed session, though often that simply will not give the public any meaningful information about what is being discussed.
On Tuesday, during the same meeting Lubinsky was playing pretend, the county board scheduled a possible closed session for "Section 19.85(1)(g), Conferring with legal counsel concerning strategy to be adopted by the governmental body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved."
Now, is that enough information to know what is really being discussed? No, but if the county had followed Lubinsky's advice, that's all the information there would have been.
Fortunately, the county, to its credit, went further and listed the case and the issue at hand: Oneida County Case No. 16-CV-21; Child Support Legal Procedures-Stipulations and Orders.
Lubinsky's recording - yes, they recorded her - is worthless and so is her handout. Hopefully, no one will ever have to endure watching her performance again.
The county board should toss the handouts and distribute as required reading the state Department of Justice compliance manual. We wonder why Lubinsky didn't use that herself, unless there were things in there she didn't want supervisors to see.
What's more, we don't know how much Lubinsky was paid to play make believe, but the price should come out of every supervisor's personal pocket, not charged to taxpayers or collected through an insurance company. Taxpayers gained nothing of benefit from this display of mockery.
As bad as Lubinsky is, the real problem in Oneida County with respect to open government is corporation counsel Brian Desmond. We don't really know who suggested hiring Lubinsky, but it sure reeks of Desmond's handiwork.
In the meantime, his in-house advice continues to thwart transparency in Oneida County government.
The time has come to end this old good-old-boy game. The house needs to be cleaned, not just Desmond but the county board, which lets anti-transparency forces not just win the day but ridicule the very idea of open government.
In the meantime, this newspaper will increase its scrutiny of open records and open meetings laws compliance inside the county. Because, with public displays like the one given by the board and Lubinsky, we shudder to think what's going behind closed doors.
Comments:
You must login to comment.