We’re newspaper writers. We studied journalism in college, took courses in First Amendment law, learned the ways governments keep their secrets and dodge open-records laws. We’re biased. Our hackles rise whenever anybody proposes making government any less open.

So naturally, we think the town council erred when it voted 5-2 to approve an ordinance giving executive session to two volunteer citizen boards. And we hope that, tomorrow, they’ll vote 7-0 to quash a move to allow HARC and the Planning and Zoning Commission to close parts of their meetings.

But we’re not the only ones against it. Several current and former members of each board have said they don’t need — or particularly want — the power of executive session. Council should listen to their voices before voting to close down any part of Telluride’s open government.

Town attorney Kevin Geiger and some council members have insisted that this ordinance isn’t a move to strangle open government. Executive sessions will be held sparingly, will be noticed 72 hours in advance, will only be called to receive perhaps legal advice, they’ve said.

Perhaps. But that’s not enough reason to pass this ordinance. The standard for closing off government — however minimally — should be absolute necessity, and the town has failed to show that HARC and P&Z couldn’t do their jobs without this power. After listening to all the arguments supporting executive session, it’s clear that this ordinance is a war of choice.

If members of Planning and Zoning or the Historic Architecture Review Commission feel like they need private legal advice to understand a zoning issue or property being litigated, they can always ask Geiger for advice individually, or send him confidential e-mails. And Geiger can send — and has sent — the board members confidential memos that explain legal tangles.

Here’s Geiger: “The information can be provided in another format, and on occasion I have done that, in a written memorandum.”

Chance Leoff, a HARC member, affirms that: “In all the time I’ve been on HARC, I’ve never felt that that option wasn’t available.”

Chris Myers, another HARC member, seconded that opinion. At a public meeting to discuss the ordinance, he said he opposed the move.

And Michael Zivian said that during his decade on Planning and Zoning, “there was never a time that I felt any need to have a session behind closed doors. I think it’s a terrible idea. It always creates suspicion. There’s no reason to ever do it.”

One of Telluride’s charms is the fact that government isn’t hidden behind an iron wall.
Most days, you can walk into town hall or stop by the coffee cart to chat with the people who run the show. They’ll tell you what they know, unfurl plans, pull out a file folder and spill its contents. It’s not perfect, but it’s far more open than most governments.

If Telluride is truly concerned with keeping government open and maintaining the image of an open government, it can’t get behind an ordinance to increase privacy powers for two powerful town boards.

It’s a clear choice, and we hope that the council comes down on the side of openness and transparency.
     
— Patrick Healy, Matthew Beaudin, Reilly Capps