Today, the DC Council passed an emergency bill making substantial changes to how the District’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) applies to the Council.

Today, the DC Council passed an emergency bill making substantial changes to how the District’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) applies to the Council, significantly limiting the applicability of the OMA to only legislative meetings and committee markups. Under the Council Rules, an emergency bill requires a 2/3 vote of the Members to pass and remains in effect for 90 days. Notably, it is not subject to a public hearing.

The debate largely centered on whether the Council should take a broad or narrow approach to amending the Open Meetings Act, which facilitates public access to government meetings Councilmember Allen moved an amendment creating new, limited situations in which the Council could close its otherwise open meetings to discuss sensitive matters, rather than taking the approach of the introduced version of the emergency bill of almost entirely exempting the legislative branch from the OMA. The amendment failed 4-8. The underlying emergency bill then passed 10-2, with Councilmembers Allen and Lewis George opposing.

Councilmember Charles Allen (Ward 6) delivered the following remarks in favor of his amendment during today’s Legislative Meeting:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I want to make clear that I – and I think all of us – recognize that we need some changes to the Open Meetings Act. We have had clear and pressing needs at times to have discussions about a variety of sensitive, pending, and ongoing issues that we simply cannot have in a public setting. So, I’m generally supportive of making some tweaks to our open meetings laws; however, I believe the language before us goes too far by completely removing the Council from being subject to the Open Meetings Act, with the exception of legislative meetings, like the one we are in right now, and committee markups where votes are taken. It would also allow every agency, board, and commission across all of District government to have more exemptions to the Open Meetings Law and close an otherwise open meeting. The genesis for this emergency legislation today was reportedly to address issues that the Council, not necessarily all agencies, boards, and commissions across the District government, has been struggling to address, and I’m glad that we were able to come to an agreement this morning that this emergency legislation should be tailored and only touch on the Council and that you’re moving a separate amendment on that issue momentarily. Any impact on agencies, boards, or commissions would be better addressed in the permanent version of a bill.

But I want to be clear with my colleagues and with the public what’s before us. Rather than address the discrete and legitimate issues we’re trying to solve for, the underlying emergency legislation, even when amended to just impact the Council, broadly exempts the Council from the entire Open Meetings Law except for only our legislative meetings and committee markup votes. I think that is too broad and misses the moment. With the language included today, it would make our legislative breakfasts, even public hearings on legislation and roundtables, presumed closed to the public. Or could be closed with no reasons required.

Now, do I think you, Mr. Chairman, or my fellow colleagues are going to stop noticing hearings and bar the public from watching or attending them? Of course not. But the law shouldn’t leave open questions or room for doubt that a future member of this body can seize on and exploit.

I’ve been a longtime advocate for the District’s sunshine laws and the accountability and public trust they foster, and I think we should narrow the emergency bill before us today to fix the problem we’re trying to solve – which is: our open meetings law should not be a barrier on our ability to conduct unannounced agency site visits for oversight purposes, to organize a retreat to discuss issues that are top of mind for the Council, to strategize with ourselves or other branches of government on a federal response, or receive a confidential briefing on the status of important economic development projects or legal negotiations impacting the District government.

The amendment I’m offering does all that and creates great flexibility. In fact, I think every scenario some of my colleagues asked about where they desire to be able to meet or converse in a private setting would be allowed. Those are legitimate and real examples of when it is in the Council’s interest, even the public’s interest, for us to be able to meet behind closed doors to do our jobs to deliver for our residents. But in doing so, my amendment importantly doesn’t exempt the Council from the Open Meetings law the way that the underlying proposal does. We can strike the right balance today by being more specific about which types of meetings or gatherings we want to be closed to the public rather than being overbroad and excluding meetings that we currently invite public attendance and participation. This is also an emergency action, and I think it would be much wiser to begin with more narrow changes to the Open Meetings law and then wrestle with more broad changes as part of the public discussion on the permanent.

I heard some say, we’re facing real threats that require us to move nimbly and at times discreetly. I agree, and my amendment does that. But our reaction to these threats, and what doors we close to the public and to the press in response, will speak volumes about how we face them.