 |
|||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Open Meetings: They should be Policy, not Law The 7 April 2005 edition of the Zeitgeist e-Zine A number
of months ago, I commented
on the seeming glass ceiling that was beginning to present itself for
second and third tier DMO executives. More and more, it appears that
seasoned CVB professionals were being passed over for the top spots
in first and second tier DMOs in favor of local business leaders. Congratulations to former Hamilton County CVB CEO Amy Vaughan (Indiana), former Manhattan CVB CEO Becky Blake (Kansas) and former Bartlesville Marketing Director Tina Gilliland (Oklahoma). I can only imagine the conversation you three will have at ESTO! As many of you know, I've launched a companion e-newsletter on Board Leadership to go with my new book, Destination Leadership for Boards. As I completed the most recent edition of that newsletter, it ocurred to me that it might resonate with this subscriber base as well. For those that subscribe to both newsletters, my apologies for this repeat... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ON THE SUBJECT OF OPEN MEETINGS "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed." So reads
a portion of the 1978 decision in the case of the Oklahoma Association
of Municipal Attorneys v. the State that upholds the concept of open
meetings. And, few could effectively debate the underlying premise in
this decision. After all, when it's our money being spent and
our lives being governed, citizens should have an
opportunity to observe the process. But, when it comes to discussions of a competitive nature (i.e., us vs. them), the open meetings concept begins to lose a little luster. Case in point: the recent attempt of the DeSoto (MS) CVB to pass legislation to exempt the Bureau from the open meetings laws of that State. The Bureau has made the case that, since negotiations for space in its Civic Center (which the Bureau runs) are competitively sensitive, it should have the ability to move to executive session rather than discuss such matters in public. The measure is now awaiting the Governor's signature. The Memphis Commercial Appeal found this concept abhorrent in a recent editorial, noting that the DeSoto CVB/Civic Center has successfully lured business away from the Memphis FedExForum. And isn't that exactly WHY discussions of competitively sensitive tactics, pricing and strategy SHOULD be handled privately? With all due respect to the FedExForum's desire to curb its recent losses to the DeSoto Civic Center, it's a jungle out there. And, the DeSoto Civic Center needs to land some business to keep the subsidization of the Center from impacting local residents. In other words, if the CVB/Civic Center were forced to discuss negotiations and contracts in their "open" meetings, competitors could learn how they could steal business from the destination. And, if they were successful in stealing business (based on the information they gleaned from the open meetings law), that would negatively impact the very residents that the open meetings act purports to protect. In short, here's my take on the whole Sunshine thing: Open Meetings and Records Acts are a very bad thing for CVBs and DMOs. We operate in an insanely competitive arena that is far more akin to the private sector than the public sector. While I agree that Sunshine Laws are appropriate in many governmental arenas, I cannot support the concept when it comes to Economic Development activities. In these areas, open meetings and records significantly hamper the efforts of the very agencies that can reduce the property tax burden on area residents. That said...CVBs and DMOs should operate in an Open Meetings culture (whether there are laws to that extent or not). And here's why: The Open Meetings laws presume that those that operate with tax revenue are likely to do something wrong (ain't that a sad commentary?). That's why meetings and records should be open...so we can catch the bad guys. But, the vast majority of DMO Boards operate well inside the bounds of propriety, dedicated to creating a substantial economic impact and enhance the Quality of Life for area residents. Since your Board is trustworthy, you have nothing to hide. And, besides, look what the media instantly presumes when you attempt to move your meetings out of the sunlight: you're GUILTY. So...voluntarily open your meetings to any and all that want to attend. Be transparent. Invite the media in. They and the other attendees will soon find that the DMO is centering its efforts on increasing visitor spending (and the attendant tax revenues). And, once invited in, they will begin to understand why you will need, from time to time, to go into executive session to discuss strategy behind closed doors. It's for their own good. Bill Wanna comment on this or other topics. E-mail Me!
|
|||||||||||||
ZEITGEIST
CONSULTING |
|||||||||||||
