Mayor, City of Marion
Managing Editor Susan Berg had an interesting editorial in last week’s Marion County Record regarding the actions of the Marion City Council and the use of executive sessions. She mentioned the strict use of the sessions as well. I am asking her to explain her concern with the length of the sessions.
When I ran for this position, one of my issues I campaigned for was to have an open government by listening to the concerns of the residents of Marion, and bring them to the council. This has been a very important issue for me and at times frustrating.
The council meets every two weeks. At these meetings, it is our responsibility to make sure the residents of Marion are given an opportunity to voice their concerns themselves or for the members of the council or staff to do it. Sometimes this involves personnel. The council and city administrator must make sure the privacy of the person involved is protected. That calls for the executive session.
Next, trade secret executive sessions are used to discuss the involvement of the city with a potential business in the city, or any issues that might arise if the business is established, in order to protect the privacy of the potential business. I am very glad to have these sessions, and I can tell you, sometimes I have read what the city has done or is going to do in the newspaper before I had thought the city council had been given the opportunity to discuss and vote the decisions in open meetings — especially if the transaction takes any length of time.
Executive sessions to discuss attorney-client privileges are ones that probably need little explanation since this is the only place the council, as a whole, can do this.
Let me explain the concern I have regarding the open government of this council and city. Since the council did not do any official evaluation of the economic development director this year, recently I talked with Doug Kjellin about his position and how pleased I was with his performance as director. Then I asked him to tell me something he had observed about what I expected of him or any other staff member. He looked at me a little strangely and asked what I meant. So I think I put the question a little differently, and he responded, almost as a question. “You want me to do my job and you want communication between us?” I told him he had picked up on exactly what I had wanted. He laughed and said he was relieved to hear it. I then went on to say I thought communication of the city staff and the council is highly important for an open government.
Each staff member has a job description to maintain this communication through different chains of communication, but the ultimate goal is for the council as a whole to be informed of the business of the city in order for them to fulfill their responsibilities. We need to work together to see that this is done.
Sometimes I am accused of only listening to the old cronies or troublemakers in town because I bring the concerns that are told to me to the attention of the council or city administrator. I know some of the gentlemen or ladies I have talked to wouldn’t prefer to be called these names, but be it as it may, I intend to listen to the concerns of the residents as this may have been why some voted for me and expect no less of me.
Yes, and many of the concerns may be trivial or wrong, but it is not for me or any councilperson to decide this until facts are discussed. I spend a lot of time trying to track down the information for me to make this decision, and expect the city administrator and other council members to do the same.
In my opinion, this is one of our greatest responsibilities we have to the residents of the town. So fortunately, or unfortunately, this can best be achieved in an executive session when privacy is to be maintained until an action can be made.