We were disheartened to see the Aurora City Council carry out its plans last Friday to hold closed-door meetings to interview city manager candidates, a move that violates the state’s sunshine law.
Public business is just that, and with few legal exceptions, it must not be conducted in secret.
It’s unfortunate Aurora City Council members chose to thumb their nose at the public’s right to watch and listen to their actions. At issue is the council’s decision to interview five candidates for the position of city manager, which has been vacant since Ron Miller retired in February.
The Denver Post and the Aurora Sentinel objected to the plans for the closed-door meetings, and a lawyer for the newspapers sent a letter to the council, detailing why the meetings are illegal.
Christopher P. Beall, who also is legal counsel for the Colorado Press Association, described in clear terms that there was no legal basis for the council’s plans. The council planned to invoke a “personnel matters” exemption in Colorado Open Meetings Law in order to justify the meetings.
The exemption, Beall wrote, does not include applicants for employment with the city.
Local governments can use the personnel exemption as justification for a closed-door meeting only if a candidate is a city employee.
The newspapers asked the council to make recordings of the proceedings, and advised the council that they reserved their right to petition a court for release of the recordings.
Aurora’s city attorney contends the council’s action is legal. One of the justifications made by a council member quoted in the Aurora Sentinel is that the city always has done hiring in this fashion.
Wrong is wrong, no matter how long the city has done it that way.
Another argument being advanced by the city is that private interviews protect candidates who are employed in other positions.
“We want to have the ability to select the most qualified candidate, and to do so, we strongly believe that it is important to maintain confidentiality until such time as they are finalists,” City Attorney Charlie Richardson told The Post.
We understand how it might be uncomfortable for candidates to have to explain to their bosses why they are looking for another job. But the discomfort of a job candidate does not outweigh the public’s right to observe its city government in action.
If “uncomfortable” were the standard, then all manner of secrecy in public affairs could be justified.
Those who get city business could say they don’t want their fees publicized because it provides information to their competitors. Yet, we all know it’s important to have transparency in city contracting.
Shutting the doors and keeping the public out of city business — conducted with taxpayer dollars — is a move that must be done sparingly and with full legal justification.
To do otherwise is to risk the public trust and confidence that is in such short supply these days.
