The news last week that the city's Loan Board of Review has been taking e-mail votes on city business issues - including loans and loan reductions - was both stunning and outrageous. It was compounded by Mayor John Dickert's tepid response to the secretive balloting that has been going on outside the view of the public.

Dickert had an opportunity to embrace open government and let all city workers know that access to the governmental process is the public's right under state law - and not something that's tossed aside if the members of the Loan Board of Review think the process should be "expedited" if the loan applicant is in a hurry.

Instead, the mayor took a half-step, and simply directed that the e-mail voting be stopped temporarily until the state attorney general's office issues an opinion.

We had hoped his response would have been more forceful, perhaps a statement along the lines of this:

"Effective citizen oversight of the workings of government is essential to our democracy and promotes confidence in it. Public access to meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle."

That would have let city workers and the public know that the expectation for Racine government is that it be conducted openly and honestly.

The dispute that triggered this flap is a fine illustration why that is necessary. Developer Jim Spodick claims he had a deal with former Mayor Gary Becker to reduce the city rehabilitation loan he had assumed from $675,000 to $450,000. The Loan Review Board - voting by e-mail in June - either delayed a vote on that reduction or reduced it by $40,000 - and not the $200,000 plus that Spodick was seeking. A month later the board voted on it again, according to minutes of that meeting. Spodick is now filing a claim against the city for $650,000, saying he was misled.

Double voting? Conflicting minutes? And a developer who says he didn't even have a chance to attend the "meeting" and convince the board of his position?

An open meeting with public access to the deliberations of the board may well have prevented this mess. At the very least it would have given the taxpaying citizens better understanding of the board's actions and that is necessary to keep public confidence in our government.

That's not to say that e-mail "meetings" or even e-mail votes may not have a place in modern government - it may. Like most technological improvements, it will take some time to shake out what is and is not permissible.

The Racine County Board, for several years, has done a conference call so a subcommittee can approve the payment of bills. The telephonic "meetings" usually take only about five minutes, but public notice is given and it's done in the open in the County Clerk's office with a speaker phone.

State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's compliance guide on the Open Meetings Law notes that state courts have not yet made decisions on open meetings and electronic written communications such as e-mail or instant messaging.

"Nevertheless, because of the absence of judicial guidance on the subject, and because electronic mail creates the risk that it will be used to carry on private debate and discussion on matters that belong at public meetings subject to public scrutiny, The Attorney General's Office strongly discourages the members of every governmental body from using electronic mail to communicate about issues within the body's realm of authority."

The key to open government is public access and that did not happen here. Until it does, e-meetings and e-votes by boards and committees should be e-radicated.

As we noted above: "Effective citizen oversight of the workings of government is essential to our democracy and promotes confidence in it. Public access to meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle."

Those aren't our words. Unfortunately, they weren't the words of Mayor Dickert, either. They're the words of Attorney General Van Hollen and they're the first words you see on his compliance guide on state open meetings.

The news last week that the city's Loan Board of Review has been taking e-mail votes on city business issues - including loans and loan reductions - was both stunning and outrageous. It was compounded by Mayor John Dickert's tepid response to the secretive balloting that has been going on outside the view of the public.

Dickert had an opportunity to embrace open government and let all city workers know that access to the governmental process is the public's right under state law - and not something that's tossed aside if the members of the Loan Board of Review think the process should be "expedited" if the loan applicant is in a hurry.

Instead, the mayor took a half-step, and simply directed that the e-mail voting be stopped temporarily until the state attorney general's office issues an opinion.

We had hoped his response would have been more forceful, perhaps a statement along the lines of this:

"Effective citizen oversight of the workings of government is essential to our democracy and promotes confidence in it. Public access to meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle."

That would have let city workers and the public know that the expectation for Racine government is that it be conducted openly and honestly.

The dispute that triggered this flap is a fine illustration why that is necessary. Developer Jim Spodick claims he had a deal with former Mayor Gary Becker to reduce the city rehabilitation loan he had assumed from $675,000 to $450,000. The Loan Review Board - voting by e-mail in June - either delayed a vote on that reduction or reduced it by $40,000 - and not the $200,000 plus that Spodick was seeking. A month later the board voted on it again, according to minutes of that meeting. Spodick is now filing a claim against the city for $650,000, saying he was misled.

Double voting? Conflicting minutes? And a developer who says he didn't even have a chance to attend the "meeting" and convince the board of his position?

An open meeting with public access to the deliberations of the board may well have prevented this mess. At the very least it would have given the taxpaying citizens better understanding of the board's actions and that is necessary to keep public confidence in our government.

That's not to say that e-mail "meetings" or even e-mail votes may not have a place in modern government - it may. Like most technological improvements, it will take some time to shake out what is and is not permissible.

The Racine County Board, for several years, has done a conference call so a subcommittee can approve the payment of bills. The telephonic "meetings" usually take only about five minutes, but public notice is given and it's done in the open in the County Clerk's office with a speaker phone.

State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's compliance guide on the Open Meetings Law notes that state courts have not yet made decisions on open meetings and electronic written communications such as e-mail or instant messaging.

"Nevertheless, because of the absence of judicial guidance on the subject, and because electronic mail creates the risk that it will be used to carry on private debate and discussion on matters that belong at public meetings subject to public scrutiny, The Attorney General's Office strongly discourages the members of every governmental body from using electronic mail to communicate about issues within the body's realm of authority."

The key to open government is public access and that did not happen here. Until it does, e-meetings and e-votes by boards and committees should be e-radicated.

As we noted above: "Effective citizen oversight of the workings of government is essential to our democracy and promotes confidence in it. Public access to meetings of governmental bodies is a vital aspect of this principle."

Those aren't our words. Unfortunately, they weren't the words of Mayor Dickert, either. They're the words of Attorney General Van Hollen and they're the first words you see on his compliance guide on state open meetings.