THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 22, 1995 TAG: 9501200200
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 59 lines
City Council Member Cameron Pitts has done nothing wrong by following his conscience to talk openly about city business.
A decision to sell a large parcel of city-owned land and one of its best waterfront sites to casino operators whose operations could impact heavily on the city - negatively in the eyes of some taxpayers - is public business.
Pitts obviously felt that such an important decision should not be made secretly. But when he talked openly about the situation, some of his colleagues didn't like it. They even had a special closed meeting at 6 p.m. last Friday to chastise Pitts.
Some of the comments from others council members even sounded threatening. One colleague spoke to a reporter of ``ramifications.''
In fact, Pitts is well within his rights to talk, according to a past president of Local Government Attorneys of Virginia. There is nothing that prohibits a council member from talking about what goes on in a closed session or from naming companies that submit proposals to the city.
One council member, describing himself as ``livid'' with Pitts, said there are ``certain rules council abides by.''
If those ``rules'' encourage a council person to keep important information from the public, then those ``rules'' should be broken and Pitts was right to do so.
Across this country, city councils and county boards conduct entirely too much public business behind closed doors. News reporters who cover these bodies see many decisions that indicate elected officials have been having illegal discussions in their private meetings.
Sadly, many elected officials probably don't even know when they slide into illegal discussions in their closed-door meetings. The unwritten ``rules'' passed on to new council members are not always clear about what's legally permissible and what is not.
Whatever the unwritten ``rules,'' City Council members are responsible to the public whose money they are spending. The public has a right to know what's going on, even behind closed doors - and most especially when that activity will have as much impact on the entire community as the gambling activity now proposed for the downtown waterfront.
Mayor Gloria Webb and Vice Mayor Johnny Clemons, as well as Pitts, have raised questions about the riverboat-gambling proposal. That those three diverse members are on the same side is enough to raise red flags about the proposal. That other members of council should take any of them to task also should raise some questions in the public mind.
Pitts, the mayor and vice mayor all should be admired for taking a stand each one of them knew would be unpopular with colleagues. It's not every day that elected officials anywhere are willing to stand on principle.
Despite what his colleagues would have us believe, Pitts did no wrong.
If anything, he should be commended for taking the heat from other council members to inform the public about public business. by CNB