It's understandable why city administration and council members would be unwilling or unable to talk about the situation necessitating a closed, special meeting of aldermen last month.
The decision by Mayor Ron Marsh to limit the sources of information from City Hall, however, is puzzling and disturbing.
Last Wednesday, City Administrator Mark Vahlsing sent out an e-mail to all city department heads, telling them: "If you receive any calls, or other contact from the media requesting any information, please direct those requests to me." Marsh later told the Times he instructed Vahlsing to issue the directive.
Marsh insists the decision has nothing to do with the case involving potential violations of city policies by an employee or employees. The timing, however, suggests otherwise. This newspaper, and perhaps other media, has been asking a lot of questions about the employee situation.
The mayor told the Times on Thursday the city only is following its own media policy, which has been ignored for many years. He said the decision to start following the policy was made "a few weeks ago," though nothing was said publicly about it and the media affected by the change wasn't notified.
Marsh also said the policy was implemented about a year ago. But the most recent media policy the city could supply - in compliance with an open records request by the Times - was written in 2001 and has not been updated. It essentially funnels the information flow on "substantial non-routine" matters through the Director of General Government, a position that no longer exists in Monroe city government. Vahlsing said he has assumed that responsibility.
So what can department heads at City Hall say, and when can they say it? The administration is sending conflicting messages. Vahlsing's memo clearly indicates "any" media request must go through him. Marsh made it sound that way, as well, on Thursday. But later, Vahlsing seemed to ease that position when he said that only any "substantial release" of information needed to go through him.
So what constitutes a substantial release, thus dictating that only Vahlsing can answer media questions? Is the 16th Avenue reassessment issue "substantial?" Are controversial water rates "substantial?" Is the definition of "substantial" any item that might cause public controversy?
In private business, it's common practice for media questions to get kicked up to the corporate level, where spokespersons hired to put the best public spin on a situation are the only people accessible.
Getting the same treatment from your public government is not acceptable. And if you think this is simply a media issue, it is worth nothing that the 2001 media policy apparently being followed pertains to "information released to the media and/or general public."
With all due respect to former Director of General Government Jim Myers, current City Administrator Mark Vahlsing and any future city administrators, department heads have an expertise in their particular areas that sometimes allows them to provide insight and information on issues that the mayor or administrator can't. They should be accessible and accountable to the media, and the general public, for questioning at all times, especially on matters that are "substantial" to the public.
Aldermen should ask the mayor why he has chosen this particular time to restrict who at City Hall can speak, and when. And then they should revise the media policy to allow for a free flow of information to the public. It is, after all, government by and for the people.
The decision by Mayor Ron Marsh to limit the sources of information from City Hall, however, is puzzling and disturbing.
Last Wednesday, City Administrator Mark Vahlsing sent out an e-mail to all city department heads, telling them: "If you receive any calls, or other contact from the media requesting any information, please direct those requests to me." Marsh later told the Times he instructed Vahlsing to issue the directive.
Marsh insists the decision has nothing to do with the case involving potential violations of city policies by an employee or employees. The timing, however, suggests otherwise. This newspaper, and perhaps other media, has been asking a lot of questions about the employee situation.
The mayor told the Times on Thursday the city only is following its own media policy, which has been ignored for many years. He said the decision to start following the policy was made "a few weeks ago," though nothing was said publicly about it and the media affected by the change wasn't notified.
Marsh also said the policy was implemented about a year ago. But the most recent media policy the city could supply - in compliance with an open records request by the Times - was written in 2001 and has not been updated. It essentially funnels the information flow on "substantial non-routine" matters through the Director of General Government, a position that no longer exists in Monroe city government. Vahlsing said he has assumed that responsibility.
So what can department heads at City Hall say, and when can they say it? The administration is sending conflicting messages. Vahlsing's memo clearly indicates "any" media request must go through him. Marsh made it sound that way, as well, on Thursday. But later, Vahlsing seemed to ease that position when he said that only any "substantial release" of information needed to go through him.
So what constitutes a substantial release, thus dictating that only Vahlsing can answer media questions? Is the 16th Avenue reassessment issue "substantial?" Are controversial water rates "substantial?" Is the definition of "substantial" any item that might cause public controversy?
In private business, it's common practice for media questions to get kicked up to the corporate level, where spokespersons hired to put the best public spin on a situation are the only people accessible.
Getting the same treatment from your public government is not acceptable. And if you think this is simply a media issue, it is worth nothing that the 2001 media policy apparently being followed pertains to "information released to the media and/or general public."
With all due respect to former Director of General Government Jim Myers, current City Administrator Mark Vahlsing and any future city administrators, department heads have an expertise in their particular areas that sometimes allows them to provide insight and information on issues that the mayor or administrator can't. They should be accessible and accountable to the media, and the general public, for questioning at all times, especially on matters that are "substantial" to the public.
Aldermen should ask the mayor why he has chosen this particular time to restrict who at City Hall can speak, and when. And then they should revise the media policy to allow for a free flow of information to the public. It is, after all, government by and for the people.
