In Our Opinion … City council needs a lesson on transparency

It was a small, likely unnoticed, comment, but a very telling one.
We’re talking about what City Councilmember Nayeem Choudhury suggested at the Feb. 10 council meeting. That’s when he requested that his fellow councilmembers should meet in closed session to talk about city matters.
It’s alarming that Choudhury thinks nothing of meeting behind closed doors with his colleagues to discuss ordinary city business.
This is clearly a suggestion to violate the state’s Open Meetings Act (OMA), which reserves closed session for very specific reasons, such as discussing ongoing litigation.
The one thing the OMA doesn’t sanction is a public body, such as a city council, discussing general business out of earshot of the public.
Government operations are meant to be conducted in the open, for all to see and hear.
Choudhury’s comment — and the distinct lack of blowback from his council colleagues — raises a concern about whether the councilmembers are even aware of what the OMA allows and doesn’t allow.
Worse, we suspect that this offhand comment shows a lack of respect for the public’s right to know what their government is up to.
We suggest the council invite someone to tutor them in what the OMA is all about.
The council has already pushed the boundaries of what’s acceptable by their ongoing habit of introducing important items onto their agendas right as meetings begin – thus, not giving the public any heads-up on matters that they might deserve to know about.
The council is only three months into its new term, and it’s not too late to take corrective action. If more time passes without regard to the state law on open government, this situation will grow worse – and may result in embroiling the city in more unnecessary legal action.
Posted March 27, 2026