Chattanooga City Council Faces Lawsuit Over Secretive Decision-Making

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Background on the Lawsuit
3. Violations of the Open Meetings Act
4. Autocratic Techniques Used by Public Officials
   • Technique 1: Private Meetings
   • Technique 2: Serial Meetings
5. The Redistricting Committee's Approach
6. Narrow View of the Open Meetings Law
7. Definition of "Deliberate" by the Tennessee Supreme Court
8. Importance of Public Input
9. Frustration of Citizens
10. Conclusion

Article

Background on the Lawsuit

The Chattanooga Times Free Press filed a lawsuit in December against the Chattanooga city council over its use of private meetings to decide on the new boundaries of City voting districts. The lawsuit alleges violations of the open meetings act and aims to shed light on autocratic techniques used by public officials to skirt the law and shut out the public and journalists reporting for the public.

Violations of the Open Meetings Act

The lawsuit is significant because it targets two autocratic techniques that are sometimes employed by public officials in Tennessee. The first technique is holding private meetings rather than conducting public discussions. In this case, the city council held private discussions about new boundary lines instead of involving the public in the decision-making process. The Second technique is the use of serial meetings, where city staff acts as intermediaries and meet individually with council members to bring them into agreement behind the scenes. These techniques violate the principles of transparency and exclude the public from Meaningful participation.

Autocratic Techniques Used by Public Officials

T|Technique 1: Private Meetings

The redistricting Committee of Four City Council Members, formed by the city council's chairman, convened private meetings with executive staff from the mayor's office. Unlike other city council committees, the redistricting committee did not give public Notice of its meetings or keep minutes. The committee may argue that these meetings were not subject to the open meetings act since they didn't make any decisions or deliberate toward a decision. However, according to the specific definition of "deliberate" set by the Tennessee Supreme Court, these meetings should have been open to the public as they involved examining and consulting to form an opinion.

T|Technique 2: Serial Meetings

To reach a Consensus on the proposed map, the redistricting committee instructed the mayor's staff to meet individually with each council member about potential district boundaries. City staff dedicated hundreds of hours to these private individual meetings. When the proposed map was introduced to the full City Council in the first public meeting, it was clear that the staff believed all council members were already in agreement. These serial meetings, where city staff serves as intermediaries, deprive the public of the opportunity to witness their representatives publicly debate issues and participate in the decision-making process.

The Redistricting Committee's Approach

The redistricting committee's approach to determining new boundary lines for City voting districts was distinctly different from the process used a decade ago. While previous redistricting discussions were conducted in public, this time, the council members held private discussions behind closed doors. The public meetings that followed were mere Rubber stamping of the decisions that had already been made privately. This secretive approach raised concerns about the legitimacy and transparency of the redistricting process.

Narrow View of the Open Meetings Law

The argument put forth by the city of Chattanooga that the redistricting committee's private meetings were not subject to the open meetings act takes a narrow view of the law. Many government presentations given to governing bodies, such as the mayor presenting a budget proposal or the Sheriff discussing a new jail plan, are open to the public even though no decisions are being made. The examining and consulting process involved in the redistricting committee's meetings with the mayor's staff is essential to the decision-making process and should have been open to the public.

Definition of "Deliberate" by the Tennessee Supreme Court

The Tennessee Supreme Court has defined "deliberate" as a process encompassing doing, examining, and consulting to form an opinion. The redistricting committee's meetings with the mayor's staff to Gather information on redistricting requirements and choices fall within the definition of deliberation. These meetings should have been open to the public, allowing citizens to witness the process and contribute their input.

Importance of Public Input

The lawsuit against the Chattanooga city council highlights the importance of public input in decision-making processes. Government bodies should operate transparently and involve the public in discussions that impact their lives and communities. By holding private meetings and excluding public participation, officials undermine the principles of democracy and accountability. Citizens have the right to be informed and have their voices heard on important issues.

Frustration of Citizens

The use of autocratic techniques, such as private and serial meetings, to keep important issues outside the public eye until it's too late for meaningful citizen input is a recurring source of frustration for citizens across the state. In the case of the Chattanooga redistricting, citizens requested to be alerted when the ad hoc committee began its work, but their request was ignored. This disregard for public engagement only deepens the trust deficit between the government and its constituents.

Conclusion

The lawsuit filed by the Chattanooga Times Free Press against the Chattanooga city council reflects the need for accountability and transparency in the decision-making process of public officials. By challenging the use of autocratic techniques such as private and serial meetings, the lawsuit aims to protect the rights of citizens to participate in shaping their communities. It is crucial for governing bodies to adhere to the open meetings act and actively involve the public to maintain the trust and integrity of the democratic system.

Highlights

• Chattanooga Times Free Press filed a lawsuit against the Chattanooga city council over the use of private meetings for decision-making.
• The lawsuit targets autocratic techniques employed by public officials to skirt the open meetings act.
• Techniques include private meetings and serial meetings conducted with city staff acting as intermediaries.
• Violation of transparency and exclusion of public input are significant concerns.
• Narrow view of the open meetings law is disputed, emphasizing the importance of public access to decision-making processes.

FAQ

Q: Why did the Chattanooga Times Free Press file a lawsuit against the Chattanooga city council?
A: The lawsuit was filed because the city council used private meetings to make decisions on the new boundaries of City voting districts, violating the open meetings act.

Q: What autocratic techniques were used by the public officials?
A: Two techniques were employed: private meetings and serial meetings. Private meetings excluded public involvement, while serial meetings involved city staff acting as intermediaries between council members.

Q: What is the significance of the lawsuit?
A: The lawsuit highlights the importance of transparency and public input in decision-making processes. It aims to hold public officials accountable and protect the rights of citizens to participate in shaping their communities.

Q: How were the autocratic techniques justified by the city council?
A: The council may argue that the private meetings were not subject to the open meetings act as no decisions were made. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court's definition of "deliberate" contradicts this argument.

Q: What are the consequences of excluding public input from important decisions?
A: Excluding public input deepens the trust deficit between the government and its constituents and undermines the principles of democracy and accountability. Citizens have the right to be informed and have their voices heard on matters that affect them.