Vincent Murray, Director of Planning, response to my earlier email

Email from Vincent Murray, Director of Planning, response to my earlier email to the town manager and council

January 16, 2009

Andrew:

Steve Alfred directed your emails to my attention for review and reply. Although your email is very general in nature one question you pose seems to be a general inquiry about the broad processes and procedures that the Town utilizes to engage the public in participatory democracy on the local level. In broad form the Town's Charter defines our local governmental organization and procedures with regard to the Town Council's powers and duties and its relationship to the electorate. It also details the duties and requirements of the various Town Boards and Commissions and administrative departments and procedures. With reference to the crafting and adoption of the Town's budget and Capital Improvement Program the Charter defines the post "Financial Town Meeting" procedures adopted in November of 2006. These changes, which include detailed provisions to engage the public's interest in the budget development process, were crafted by an appointed Charter Review Commission and subsequently approved by the Town Council and the electorate in November of 2006.

All meetings of the Town Council and other municipal public bodies are conducted in accordance with the requirements of RIGL 42-46 "Open Meetings" and all town records are available to interested parties under the provisions of RIGL 38-2 "Access to Public Records". As you know the historical essence of participatory democracy is the public interaction of elected officials and the electorate in open, public forum. The interest of the electorate and public at large in issues and proposals that come before Town Councils and other municipal boards and commissions is as variable as the New England weather, sometimes intense and other times more tepid. Often the most intense participation is seen in neighborhood type issues rather than those related generally to the Town as a whole. This interaction is critical in shaping policies and programs that are balanced, rational and reflective of the best interests of the community. It can't be forced but the Town can (and does) make a substantial effort to inform, engage and outreach the community though a variety of means. This includes all postings and advertisements required under the open meetings law and the Town's Charter and Code of Ordinances, providing detailed informational packages on all agendas to the local press (Narragansett Times, South County Independent and Providence Journal) and at the Peace Dale Library as well as increasing utilization of the Town's website, www.southkingstownri.com for a wide array of information, schedules, reports, contact information, data sets (including tax assessment information and access to the Town's GIS system) various links, etc. The Town provides a concerted effort to maintain and update the site. The website also provides interested parties the ability to communicate with the Town Hall via email to ask questions, express opinions or raise issues of any kind. These inquires are relayed to the Town Manager's office for handling and response. The website is a well-used resource in the community with an average # of hits per day of 320 (new and repeat visitors), new visitors average 162 per day. The monthly average # of visits to the website is 9,733.

We view online participation through the Town's website as valuable adjunct to the public participatory process for the Town Council and Town Boards and Commissions. It is not a substitute for the public process nor should it be. The newer trend you cite (use of "wiki's, issue tracking blogs and the like) is of interest locally and may be something we can use as an adjunct to and support of the public processes of government in the not too distant future. We did in fact use the Town's website to assess and engage the public's views on issues relating to the budget development process during the Charter Review Commission process. This type of outreach will likely be utilized again on an issue specific basis.

However, the use of anonymous blog sites raises concerns in terms of open meeting law requirements and the overriding need that the process to consider issues, develop policies and conduct government business generally must be of an open and public nature. You may recall that Special Assistant AG Laura Marasco at this weeks forum, "Open Government 101" (which you attended) indicated that local governments should avoid use of blogging sites due to open meetings concerns, (we also had a staff member in attendance at the seminar). We are consulting with our legal counsel to gain a better understanding of these issues from the legal perspective, but at the moment will be guided by the advice given by Assistant AG Marasco and not move in this direction. At present the Town Council, School Committee, Town Manager and Superintendents primary focus is developing a budget in very difficult fiscal circumstances. Given this singular focus, the consideration of changes to engage and inform the citizenry though electronic means will have to await the municipal and school budgets being crafted and finalized.

It is hoped this discussion is useful as a reply to your recent communications. Should you have questions or comments please direct these to my attention. Best regards.

Sincerely,


Vincent Murray

Director of Planning