Transparency issues in charter process would indicate something to hide.
Steve Galyardt’s recent letter (“‘No on A’ group plays with truth,” Reader Input, April 27), answered some questions, by saying that “vetting” of the charter was done by the Chamber of Commerce functioning as a “Citizens Advisory Committee.” This isn’t the government-appointed citizens’ committee called for by the League of California Cities. Citizens were concerned that only three public hearings were allocated to public comment by the council on such an important matter and wanted a committee.
This insult to citizens is in addition to missing correspondence submitted to the council, which only turned up and was placed in the public record, after being released pursuant to a public records request from me, and after I had to engage an attorney to get it.
This was well after the approval of the city’s final charter language. Most of those documents were contrary to the charter for sound reasons.
Still missing, because they refuse to release them, are the councilors’ emails from their personal email accounts then listed on the city website, by which they admittedly conducted city business, citing their right to privacy!
A classic closed door process. It was drafted from a pre-crafted template; no public committee; deference to the chamber input from their meetings with a quorum of councilpersons in attendance; documents missing from the public record; the aforementioned email issue; and the maintenance of a policy promoting the destruction of records after 30 days when they actually must be retained for two years. No on Measure A for transparency reasons alone. Then go back and do it right.
VICTORIA CONNOLLY, Auburn