Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-04-02
a SHOW OF opESNEss.

LAST evening the City Council
found itself in an awkward situa-
ton. A motion wss put and carried
that the Council 90 into executive
session, and the mayor made the
announcement. The room was
cleared Of spectators and reporters,
when it occurred to certain mem
beers that a good opportunity was
presented to make a show Of OPEN
ness in the Transaction Of city bust
ness by filling city offices in open
instead Of secret session.
A member raised the point that
secret sessions were unlawful, and
S. a. Merritt, Esq, the city at
torney. who was present, being ap-
pealed 10, laid before the Council
the legal proposition that it bad no
right to hold executive sessions.
He quoted Section of Article III
Of the general municipal law, passed
in 1SSs, as follows:
Sec. s. It the Council shall sit with
open doors and shall keep Journal Of
its proceedings"
The Mayor found a short cut out
OF the dilemma by simply declaring
out Of order the motion to go into
executive session. This fat sud-
denly transformed the existing con-
dition of secrecy to one OF pub
licity, the doors were thrown open
and the yeomanry surged in as be-
fore. The city attorney is known
TO be 4 very jovial gentleman, and
has cOuntenance which indicates
ability to enjoy a good joke. He
il also reputed TO be a good lawyer
and thoroughly familiar with the
statutes and duties relating TO his
position. We dislike to accuse him
of blunder, or to charge him with
having played practical joke
on the Council. But his guilt
is fixed as to one or the other. The
section of the statute which he
quoted as prohibiting executive
sessions does not apply to cities in
corporated before that statute was
passed. Even if it did, it would be
interpreted in the light of well set
tied parliamentary law and usage,
and would be construed to mean
that the ordinary business of the
Council must be transacted with
open doors, but that discussions
which the interests of the NUM-
cipality require TO be kept private,
may take place in executive ses-
sion. To take the position that all
that is said and doue by the Coun-
ell must be said and done in public,
isabsurd. Alparliamentary bodies
have a necessary and natural right
to go into executive session if taey
choose.
1t viii lie well for the city if all
its business shall be transacted in a
manner to correspond with this out
ward opennes>. But il everything
has been open ana above board, why
did one Councilman get "riled''-to
quote term used in the same con-
nectiOn by the chief "Liberal''
organ-because more than one NOM
ination was made for q certain city
Office last evening? And if all city
business has been done in open SEES
sion, who are the citizens and tax
payers that were present when the
compensation Of city officers was
publicly discussed, before being
irrevocabiy fixed? Were not the
nominations aud salaries agreed
uponin caucus? And when all the
members Of the Council are Of the
same political party, what is the |
difference between a caucus and an |
executive session?
These matters require explanation !
in order TO harmonic much that
has been done in the line Of public
business with this show OF openness;
otherwise the latter will be suspect
ed Of having two objects, a refee-
ton upon the former Council ara n
desIre to secure to the present one
credit.