Editorial: Pittsburgh City Council briefings skirt intent of transparency requirements

Government transparency is black and white. Records are either open or they aren’t. A meeting is public or it isn’t.

There are reasons for both. The majority of government activity should happen in the open. It should be well documented. It should be searchable, accessible and with as few hurdles as possible.

Spending public money? Raising taxes or fees? Debating new or changing law? All of that has to happen where people can see it.

But there are issues that come up in which the access has to be more judicious. Vulnerable people like children and crime victims must be protected. Privacy of some data for individuals does not need to be broadly available. The public money must be guarded by taking smart business steps, like taking legally allowed steps in negotiations for personnel or real estate.

So what is happening with Pittsburgh City Council?

The members officially meet on Tuesday mornings. They also have standing committee meetings, additional committee meetings and executive sessions as needed. Those are listed on the city’s website along with details, agendas, minutes and even video.

What are not available are the other meetings — or “briefings” — that take place in between. Less formal and undocumented, these aren’t meetings that are searchable. They aren’t meetings where the public or parties not invited to offer information have the opportunity to speak up.

Council seems to realize the briefings are potentially a problem by avoiding a quorum. That’s the number of people required to have a vote and be considered a “real” meeting. In the case of the nine-member council, that’s five members. Put enough people in one room to both discuss and vote, and you have a pretty clear violation of Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.

But a fluid movement of people back and forth? It might not be out-and-out illegal, but it certainly juggles the ethical considerations of the requirements.

City Council Solicitor Dan Friedson, for example, said he “can’t think of a single reason” why some meetings aren’t just held openly. Unless the wildlife are on the payroll or selling the city a building, there should be no reason to discuss deer management behind closed doors. But that happened March 27.

That can seem like nit-picking. Is it really a big deal to talk about deer outside of a meeting? The problem is that once you start discussing some things out of the public eye, it’s easier to discuss more things that way — like the city budget. Friedson said that has happened, too.

Pittsburgh City Council is not the only transgressor. It’s the kind of thing that can become inadvertent and convenient for municipal leaders, school boards and counties. But that doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

In fact, the easy slide out of the bright light of the public eye is exactly why “briefings” and other closed-door meetings need to be carefully watched. They ought to be vigilantly maintained as the rare exceptions to the black-and-white rules lest everything become a gray area.