Public matters

Open discussion of public business always is a good idea.

His first instinct was right, but his follow-through was lacking.

Last week, Lawrence City Commissioner David Schauner blocked an attempt by his commission colleagues to speed up approval for a new housing development at 19th and Delaware streets. The proposal had created a fair amount of controversy in the Barker Neighborhood and before the commission, and Mayor David Dunfield suggested skipping the usual one-week waiting process for final approval so the debate could finally end.

Schauner objected to that course of action, saying commissioners shouldn’t curtail public input just because that input becomes frustrating or inconvenient.

“I don’t like to rush these matters where neighborhoods are concerned,” Schauner said.

Dunfield withdrew his motion. Thanks to Schauner, the normal processes were preserved so the public could retain its full right to comment on the city’s business.

So it was surprising when, just a few days later, Schauner expressed skepticism about the usefulness of the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

Schauner, an attorney who often deals with school boards that are subject to the act, said he had been a longtime fan of the law. But as a recently elected official, Schauner added, his views were starting to change. Forcing commissioners to discuss all of their ideas in public, he said, prevents them from thinking outside the box.

“I think there’s significant value in being able to have some discussion away from the public eye,” he said.

That’s a dubious and worrisome proposition.

The idea behind open meetings laws is not just that the public can have its say on the issues of the day. It’s also so voters and taxpayers can keep track of their elected officials — not just their actions, but the reasoning and rationale behind those actions. It is, after all, the public’s business, not the officials’ business, that’s being conducted.

Goal-setting sessions, like the one where Schauner made his statement Friday, are where commissioners determine the principles that will guide city governance for the next year and beyond. The public deserves to know how commissioners arrive at those principles, even if it is frustrating or inconvenient to the commissioners.

Schauner acted with the right instincts when it came to preserving neighborhood input. Let’s hope Schauner and his colleagues continue to apply those standards of openness to all issues that come before the commission.