Watching the Chula Vista City Council’s first month in action has been like watching a chimp in a clown suit try to pull its trapped hand out of a small hole while clutching a banana.The simplest action could have yielded the simplest result if not for the intriguingly perplexing act of being stubborn.
When reporter Robert Moreno earlier this year asked members of the City Council who they nominated to be interviewed for appointment to the council, all but John McCann declined to share their choices with him.
When Moreno submitted a public records request seeking the same information, authorities again rejected him citing a variety of legal reasons and explanations.
Given that The Star-News is not owned by a deep-pocketed media empire with a cadre of attorneys to rebut the city’s claims, the painstakingly slow counter research was conducted by non legal minds in-house.
At about the same time, however, citizen Chris Shilling submitted his own records request. But when he was denied his access, attorneys yielded him different results.
Shilling’s attorneys threatened a lawsuit, the matter was expedited for City Council closed session discussion and the next thing you know the list of interview nominees as submitted by each council person was made available to the public.
It was a simple request: provide the names of people each council member wanted to interview for the job. The simple solution would have been to relinquish the names — like a primate relinquishing a banana so that it could get on with its life.
Revealing the nominees would not have broken any laws and it would have provided every elected official an opportunity to say “I’m transparent, I have nothing to hide.”
Instead the council — via its legal team — finds reasons not to reveal simple information. That is until they are threatened with a lawsuit. The next thing you know the city’s legal foundation crumbles away faster than a Graham cracker tract home in a hailstorm.
Of course the city’s latest contention is that they believe their initial rejection was justified, but in the interest of providing “appropriate transparency” they “will now provide the requested records.”
Here’s an idea: Be open and forthcoming from the beginning. Err on the side of transparency. Don’t force the people whose business you are conducting to retain an attorney so they can get information that, really, is not a big deal.
Give the people you represent reasons to trust you, to have faith in your judgment not question it.
Unfortunately this episode, in combination with the melodramatic way the actual appointment was made, doesn’t inspire immediate confidence.
Fortunately, this cast of characters has three more years to get it right. Good luck with that.
