Closed Council meetings = Better informed public
Absurd “less is more” rationale for Issue 12 from the Columbus Dispatch
By Suzanne Patzer
It is hypocritical for the Dispatch, a consistent champion of open records and sunshine laws, to advocate for Issue 12, the ballot issue allowing closed City Council meetings (“Open Secrets,” Tues., Sept. 21 editorial). Tax-paying Columbus citizens do not need to be shielded from hearing varying opinions and disagreements between our elected representatives. In fact, some dissent would be a refreshing change from the homogenous and suspiciously “unanimous” votes we repeatedly witness.
The Dispatch editorial explained that most of Council business goes on “outside of public meetings” already, so why not give them our blessing to continue these backroom deals by changing the charter language. We don’t like the backroom deals going on now, and we certainly don’t want Council emboldened to hold sanctioned secret meetings.
The Dispatch’s absurd claim that the “City charter change would provide public with more information” insults all Columbus citizens. With this logic, then, if the Dispatch stopped printing its newspaper, I’m sure we would all be more informed citizens.