STAFF EDIT: Open To The Public

The Boston City Council is a forum through which the resident of the city can raise issues and have their voices heard. Public meetings are essential to this process, as they allow for civic representation and open communication of opinions. With his proposal for a closed-door agenda setting for a City Council meeting, new Council President Michael Flaherty obviously does not see the need for a voice from the public.

In a misguided effort to organize the City Council, Flaherty proposed this private meeting to strategize better working relationships among councilors and settle an agenda for the year. However, in requesting greater cohesion among the Council, Flaherty is betraying one of the Council’s foremost purposes, which is to open debate among a variety of representatives from different areas of the city with varied viewpoints. By persuading councilors to get along, the messages and issues important to the people risk being lost.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to keep this meeting private. While smaller, informal discussions between councilors prior to the public session are understandable — and likely beneficial — civic involvement is a must for any decision-making process.

By excluding the public from a meeting, especially one that sets an agenda, the city councilors would effectively be forcing agenda items on the public. The meeting violates the public’s right to offer input into official city proceedings and may prevent the Council from addressing issues its constituents want aired.

In order for the public to make educated decisions on whom to elect as city councilors, the public must be privy to all discussions of the issues. They must know what certain councilors argued for and against and why. A privately set agenda circulated after the fact is not enough. The public has a right to be heard and represented fairly.