We can empathize when Bill Turlay expresses discomfort with modern technology. Constant advancements can be confusing for those of us who are accustomed to a particular way of doing things.
But we are not members of the Vancouver City Council; Turlay is, and when it comes to following protocol, discomfort is no excuse. Turlay should ensure that he is following guidelines set by city policy and reinforced by the courts, and City Manager Eric Holmes should recognize the gravity of the issue.
According to a report in The Columbian, Turlay often discusses city business with fellow councilors or constituents by using a personal email account. Admitting that his computer knowledge is limited, the 82-year-old Turlay said, “I’m not going to change. I’ve got two years left. I’ve got a system here, and it’s worked for me.”
That explanation falls short of Turlay’s obligation to the public. City policy, adopted in 2011, states, “all city-related email should occur from a city email accounted hosted on a city server.”
That is standard protocol for governments at all levels, and it helps keep elected officials accountable to the people. Using approved email channels ensures that correspondence is accessible to the public upon request, and that back-channel deals are not being forged out of public view. Such transparency is essential for a level of openness that bolsters the public’s faith in government rather than suggesting that something nefarious is going on behind the scenes.
There is no evidence that Turlay is intentionally keeping the public in the dark. But, again, discomfort with the tools of his trade is no excuse.
In that regard, we would expect a more responsive reaction from Holmes, the city manager. “I guess I’m not understanding why you’re so interested,” he told a Columbian reporter. “I don’t control Bill. He is aware of the policy, and just like anyone else in the city, he’s been provided the support and the equipment, and he’s gone through orientation.”
Perhaps the public should remind Holmes that willfully ignoring city policy is, indeed, worthy of interest. Such actions violate the trust that citizens place in officials and can prove costly to the city. During the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump rightfully lobbed frequent criticism at Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. And Clark County was levied a fine of $15,750 for David Madore’s misuse of public communication as a county councilor. Meanwhile, a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling determined that communications made by elected officials on personal devices are public records if the content relates to public business.
In other words, it should be clear to officials by now that public business means public, and anything that could leave that business under a shroud of secrecy should be avoided. If a citizen were to request Turlay’s emails, it would be up to the councilor to search his personal email and make any relevant disclosures.
That is not acceptable in an age when digital communication should be easily archived and easily accessed. Expecting Turlay to follow policy is more reasonable than taking his word for it that he is not attempting to be evasive. This is particularly important at a time when mistrust of government is high and when the federal government is beset by accusations of lies and deception — actions that bring scrutiny to government at all levels.
Keeping up with modern technology can be difficult. But it must be expected of elected officials.
