Attention: Corvallis City Council

To the Corvallis City Council:

 

Thank you for agreeing to debate the issues I have put before you: How do we define 'media' in 2011?  Who qualifies for inclusion in city meetings that are closed to the public except for 'media' representatives?   Exactly what are the reporting restrictions placed on 'media' representatives in city executive sessions?

I ask that you consider these issues in light of the effort I have put into establishing CorvallisGadfly.com; money and energy have been expended in an effort to create competition for the local 'media' outlet. 

I would remind you that these are clearly First Amendment issues.  I suggest you write your opinions in a form that would satisfy the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The issues are critical to the future of Corvallis.

Successful government gets little public scrutiny.  Failed government, which we now have in Corvallis, must expect an entirely different reaction from the public {Failed: My grandchildren have had to illegally urinate in Central Park.  I cannot take my grandchildren to the library on rainy Sundays, when we were accustomed to curl up in a comfortable chair and read together.  That defines failure}.  Those of us who have been negatively affected by the fiscal irresponsibility of the Nelson administration are angered by the lack of public access to critical decision-making processes, and even more distressed by the apparent monopoly held by the recognized 'media' in Corvallis.  When the only reports of local government events are controlled by a for-profit non-local organization, the opportunity for inaccuracy and omission is extreme.

  I don't pretend to know the process of choosing legal counsel for the city, but I would suggest that these First Amendment issues are critical for the city, and that the council should review the process of choosing the legal entity which assists the elected government officials with these issues; I would hope that the choice of city counsel is an open process that is inclusive of all legal talent in Oregon, and that the city might consider retaining outside counsel for these critical First Amendment issues.

I appreciate the time and energy of the City Council members in reviewing these issues.  I only hope the deliberations are productive in the sense that they lead to opinions and decisions that enable the Corvallis public to be more proactive in the governing process.

The example of the ongoing labor negotiations is one of many where the city/media combination has failed to properly inform the public.  I'm hoping you'll change that situation so that we can avoid the historical fait accompli syndrome of the Nelson years, where the public is stuck with faulty agreements that are fiscally unsustainable.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

Namaste.

Kirk Nevin

CorvallisGadfly.com