CITY OF HOMER

CITY HALL

MEMORANDUM 08-157

To: Homer Mayor and Council
Homer City Manager Walt Wrede
From: Economic Development Advisory Commission
Date: November 14, 2008
Subject: Problems with interpretation of Alaska Open Meetings Act

The City of Homer Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDC) is charged with advising the City Manager and City Council on Economic Development Issues in the City of Homer. Regular meetings occur only once a month.

The EDC takes its responsibilities very seriously but feels frustrated and thwarted by an interpretation of the Alaska Open Meetings Act (OMA) which states: “Unlike a decision-making or policy-making body, there is no exception for a gathering of a small number of members of an advisory-only body. A gathering of two or more members of an advisory-only body will be a meeting under the OMA when it is prearranged for the purpose of considering the business of the body.” (from “Alaska’s Open Meetings Law” by Gordon J. Tans, October 2002). It is our understanding that a phone call or email exchange can be considered a “prearranged meeting” under the OMA.

We do not feel that a prohibition against two EDC members calling each other, emailing each other, or meeting for lunch to discuss EDC issues serves the public interest. In fact, we feel this prohibition is counter to the public interest by creating huge inefficiencies in the work of the commission. Regular meetings are longer and less productive than they would be if this prohibition were not in place. Progress on the many issues we deal with has been slow and members are frustrated. We know that other advisory body members have expressed similar frustration.

We view it as particularly unfair and irrational to allow two City Council members to meet outside of a publicly advertised venue, but not grant this same freedom to advisory body members. As an advisory-only body, we do not pass laws or dictate policies affecting the people of Homer, yet two members cannot engage in a simple conversation about any issue related to EDC business unless we just happen to bump into each other in a “chance encounter.” (Apparently, unlimited discussion is permissible as long as it takes place in the context of a “chance encounter” or at a gathering “for some purpose other than the business of the body,” while no discussion is allowed if one person calls or emails the other deliberately. Where is the sense in this?)

We are attempting to work within this narrow interpretation of the OMA by setting up subcommittees (of only two members) and advertising the meetings. Still, this is cumbersome and inefficient.

We are also exploring the idea of setting up a web-blog that would be publicly advertised (any member of the public could access the blog, read what EDC members are writing to each other, and participate in discussions directly). We believe this would allow EDC members to discuss relevant matters with each other frequently and spontaneously without violating the OMA. We intend to establish such a blog unless we are told by the City Manager that it is not allowed.

We ask for your assistance in either revising the Open Meetings Act or seeking a more reasonable interpretation of the OMA, not because we want to thwart the intent of the act but only to remove unreasonable barriers to conducting the work that we are charged to do in the public interest.

Our next regular meeting is December 9. Responses to this request will be very much appreciated and will be discussed at that meeting.