As Chris noted in PubliCalendar earlier today, the city council's open government committee will be meeting tonight to talk about proposed changes to rules governing how citizens interact with the council. Among other things, the committee has proposed establishing a new public engagement plan for the council; holding more city council meetings outside City Hall; and having an attorney present during executive sessions.

They'll also adopt rules governing council members' use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

Seattle's hard-line, old-school neighborhood groups, predictably, are up in arms about the proposals, which they argue will actually reduce the council's accessibility to the public.

In an op/ed for the Ballard News Tribune, Chris Leman and Jeannie Hale of the Seattle Community Council Federation warned that the new rules would be "a setback for open government"; that they would allow the council to meet outside City Hall or "even outside Seattle"; that they would no longer require council members to attend their committees or provide "an excuse" when they don't; that committees would no longer need a quorum, or any council members at all, present to pass legislation to full council; and that changes to council rules would no longer require approval by a council committee.

They also accuse the city council of attempting to bypass public-disclosure laws by posting on social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

That laundry list of charges is, quite simply, wrong: None of the items being proposed re: public meetings would change existing law. City Council committees can already meet outside council chambers (something council member Sally Clark started doing several years ago in an effort to increase her committee's presence in city neighborhoods); council members have never been required to attend committees they belong to (under the council's rules, anyone can attend any committee, and no "excuse" is required of council members who miss a meeting; committees have never required a quorum to vote (I remember a committee meeting entirely presided over by Jean Godden, who made a motion, seconded it, and voted it through). Council rules changes have previously required a committee vote, but, in the words of council president Richard Conlin, "we've realized that that's just not necessary."

As for the charges that city officials are attempting to circumvent public-disclosure law by posting on Facebook and Twitter: At a meeting of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission last week, Leman argued that Facebook and Twitter  "are being used, unfortunately, to violate open meetings laws and open records laws" because members of the public are required to become "friends" or "fans" of council members "to get official city information. ... It really almost puts you on record as being a supporter of the candidate or the elected official."

Leman added: "You cannot participate in Facebook or Twitter without giving your age, your phone number, and your address, which is a big question of privacy." He also argued that Facebook and other social media allow elected officials to circumvent public disclosure, because keeping paper trails is difficult.

Editorializing here: Leman seems to misunderstand how Facebook and Twitter work. With Internet access now near-universal, it could be argued that Facebook and Twitter are actually more accessible than city records kept on paper or in city employees' computers (which you have to file a records request to get). Also,  neither Facebook nor Twitter ask for detailed information—signing up for Facebook only requires a first and last name (which can be fake), an email address (which must be real, but isn't public) and gender and birthdate (which can be fake).

Twitter requires even less. Most council members' pages are public to Facebook users; you can just go and read them, without becoming a friend or a supporter. Same thing with Twitter. So it's hardly the Big Brother surveillance system Leman's comments imply.

Ultimately, Facebook and Twitter are just the latest iteration of email, and faxes before that, and voice mails, telegrams, and posted mail before that. All are fundamentally neutral. Activists like Leman (who did not return a call for comment) may protest at each new technology, but ultimately, technology has improved access to information, not diminished it.

The council's open government committee will take up the issue of public input and social media at its meeting tonight in council chambers, 600 Fourth Ave., starting at 5:30 pm.