Public agencies depend on professional staff to research issues, prepare reports and advise elected officials and appointed directors. That expertise is an important part of government. But there is a difference between directors being well informed and the public being left out of the information used to make a decision.

A public meeting is transparent when residents can reasonably understand what government officials are being asked to decide, what information they are relying on and why they are making the decision. Staff members often spend weeks or months researching an issue before it reaches a public meeting. They may prepare financial analyses, review contracts, compare alternatives, consult with other agencies and make recommendations to a board or council.
Directors should have access to that information.

The transparency question is whether the public has meaningful access to the same substantive information before the decision. One of the most important transparency tools is the staff report and supporting agenda materials. When directors receive significant information, making it available to the public before the meeting allows residents, journalists and other interested parties to review it and prepare questions or comments. Agendas and other materials can be easily accessed by going to the City of Fullerton website. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/

A public meeting should not be the first time residents learn important facts that directors have already received. This does not mean every internal staff communication must become a public document. Staff must be able to perform their administrative and professional duties. But when information becomes part of the basis for a public decision, transparency is strengthened when the relevant information is presented publicly.

Another important part of transparency occurs during the meeting itself. Directors may have questions the staff did not anticipate when writing the report. They may ask about costs, contracts, alternatives, legal issues, timelines or potential problems. Those questions and answers can be valuable to the public.

If a director asks, “What would happen if we rejected this proposal?” and staff explains the financial and practical consequences, everyone watching the meeting receives information that may be important to understanding the decision. The same is true when directors challenge a staff recommendation.

Public discussion allows residents to hear both the recommendation and the reasoning behind the questions, changes or objections raised by their representatives.

A more difficult situation occurs when significant new information is introduced during a meeting. Suppose directors receive a presentation containing new financial figures, a new proposal, a new contract provision or information about an alternative that was not included in the publicly available materials.

Directors can immediately ask questions and evaluate the information because they are already involved in the issue.
Members of the public may need more time to understand what they have just heard. That is why timing matters.

Transparency is not simply a matter of allowing cameras into a room or broadcasting a meeting online. A meeting can be technically open but still difficult for the public to follow meaningfully if important information appears only at the last minute.

Public comment is another part of the process. Residents can comment more effectively when they have access to relevant information before the board acts. If substantial new information is presented immediately before a vote, the public may be asked to comment without a realistic opportunity to study it. A transparent process gives the public a meaningful opportunity to understand an issue and respond before officials make the final decision.

There is nothing improper about directors relying on professional staff. In fact, boards and councils often cannot make informed decisions without staff expertise. The goal is not to prevent staff from advising directors. The goal is to make the substantive basis for public decisions visible to the public.

A useful standard is simple: Directors should be well informed, but the information that materially informs a public decision should not be hidden from the public.

When staff present their analysis in an open meeting, directors ask questions publicly, answers are given on the record, supporting documents are available, and residents have an opportunity to comment, the public can see how a decision develops. That does not guarantee that everyone will agree with the final decision. It does, however, make it possible for the public to understand how the decision was reached.

And that is the purpose of a public meeting: not merely to let the public watch a vote, but to let the public see government decision-making take place transparently.