Wednesday, October 10, 2001

As much as I want to win this election, I'm not going to play political games and say or do whatever it takes to win. I'd rather be elected as a candidate who speaks her mind and follows her conscience because that is who I am and how I intend to represent you on City Council.

In the next several months (yes, even after the election), you can look for me to submit a series of letters to the editor that will enlighten you with an insider's perspective of what has really been going on within the walls of City Hall. Some people may not like what I have to say because, in all honesty, the truth hurts. But, my main objective in this election is to promote community leadership and awareness, and to do that I must say what others have been afraid to say.

If the GBI had thought to consult with me when they were investigating whether or not the city had been in violation of the open meetings law during the sewerage system negotiations [in the mid-1990s], I would have provided them with evidence and testimony that I believed the law was defiantly and intentionally ignored on a routine basis.

The problem was: they didn't ask. And, I had been put on notice by City Manager Jim Basinger that it was not my place as the city clerk to say anything about how the council conducted their meetings because they believed they were protected from prosecution as long as they were following their city attorney's advice.

Additionally, the GBI and The Citizen newspaper focused on the Water and Sewerage Authority, and I had no firsthand knowledge that WASA had violated any of the open meetings laws. It was the City Council, who week after week, played by their own rules and presumably predetermined the outcome of future agenda items.

I say "presumably" because I wasn't allowed to be present during those executive session meetings, nor was the previous city clerk. But, we knew what was being discussed because the city manager always prepared a detailed list of executive session agenda items and often provided council with handouts. We were the ones who had to make copies of those handouts, clean up the room after the meeting and discard any papers left behind.

Rarely did such information concern the only three topics allowed to be discussed in executive session: real estate acquisition, pending litigation or personnel matters.

Carol Fritz's presence on council prompted some long overdue changes in the way council conducted its course of business. The very first meeting she attended was the first meeting that the city manager did not prepare his routine agenda for the executive session staff briefing. Instead, he began preparing bi-weekly memos entitled "Council Update." And within a few short months, a new section was added to future agendas: "Council/Staff Topics." You can verify the timing of these procedure changes by checking public records.

The timing is significant because on several occasions I had written memos and discussed open meeting procedures with the administration. My efforts to ensure open government fell on deaf ears until a new member of council was elected who was not part of the "inner circle."

While Fritz made great strides in providing open meetings, she was not able to effect open government single-handedly. Since the city manager was no longer providing staff briefings with the entire council, they no longer had a unified influence with the administration.

To further complicate matters, the city manager's annual evaluations, raises and retirement bonuses were determined by the mayor and not the entire council. It appeared that the mayor and city manager's allegiance to one another strengthened, while the rest of council became divided and struggled to obtain accurate and complete information.

The issue of open government is critical because it is the single most important factor in our community's ability to oversee our government. It affects the judgment and accountability of every decision our public officials make. With knowledge comes power. And that power should not belong to one or two individuals.

When information is controlled, people can be controlled. And when people can be controlled, votes can be controlled. And when votes can be controlled by anyone other than the constituents, then we are no longer living in a democratic society.

Visit my website at www.nancyfaulkner.com to learn more about my vision for community leadership. And, cast your vote for democracy on Nov. 6 to protect your right to open government.

Nancy Faillo Faulkner

nfau@bellsouth.net

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page