Seattle City Council is not as committed to open government as it claims

Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin claims the council "embraces the goal of open, transparent, and accessible government," (City Council committed to open government, Times Opinion, April 10).

The claim is not borne out by its actions. Consider:

• In April 2008, the council unanimously approved Res. 31049, promising an open government plan and to consider open government amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. But 16 months later there's no real progress toward the plan. On Aug. 10 the council may break the second promise by voting not to even study open government amendments to the Comprehensive Plan this year.

• The council didn't bat an eye when the Law Department's Civil Division director and the Department of Information Technology's deputy director presented a May 22 memo stating that quick destruction of public records reduces the city's "legal exposure." Yes, destroying evidence of official wrongdoing is one way to reduce legal exposure, but a better way is preserving that evidence, punishing violators and deterring future wrongdoing.

The council should insist on the archiving for at least a year of the city's e-mails, which are now automatically deleted after only 45 days, unless archived by the employee who sent or received them. Few take the time, and all have a conflict of interest with illegal, unethical or politically embarrassing messages that are being destroyed before ethics- and law-enforcement officials, the press or public learn they ever existed.

• The council continues to rush legislation just days after it emerges from committee, even introducing and adopting some at the same meeting without any committee consideration. Council rules should prohibit abrupt action, with exceptions allowed only with a formal finding there is no alternative.

• The council must stop evading the state Open Public Meetings Act as it builds majorities with de facto "serial" meetings that occur in person or by phone, e-mail, blog or tweet.

• Decades after the Public Records Act required it and with technology making it easier than ever, Seattle should index its documents. Instead, led by its "Open Government Committee," the council April 27 unanimously exempted itself from this requirement, outrageously declaring that an index would be "unduly burdensome" and "would interfere with City operations and such a list is nearly impossible to create and/or maintain."

• The council and city clerk must put more documents on the Web, such as timely links to legislative drafts, attachments, amendments and reports. Also, the council should insist that the public have Internet access to city departments' internal Web sites that often hide important matters.

• The council should share with the public most of the legal advice it is getting. Seattle lost tens of millions in court that could've been avoided if its weak case had been exposed in time for better legislation (examples: the unconstitutional "street utility" tax and illegal diversion of electric and water rates). Democratic debate suffers when crucial issues are restricted to secret discussions with lawyers. The council needs the public vetting that pokes holes in bad advice.

Despite pending cases, President Obama released legal advice that the U.S. Justice Department provided the CIA on its torture methods.

Surely, the council can insist that much more of its advice be made public. But in 2006 it refused to put before the voters a proposed charter amendment allowing disclosure of legal advice unless related to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. The council's Alice-in-Wonderland "embrace" of open government includes continuing to withhold the legal advice it received on that proposal.

Other councils aren't much better on open government, but Seattle is unique in claiming so much for itself and so unjustifiably. Accountability requires full and timely information about what government is doing. When officials choose what the public is allowed to know, democracy is lost.

Chris Leman is a social scientist who follows open government issues for the Seattle Community Council Federation, http://seattlefederation.blogspot.com.