Most people talk about transparency as a value. I'd rather talk about it as a set of practices, because that's what actually determines whether residents can trust what the city tells them.

Transparent government means major decisions are explained before they're made, not just defended after the vote. Residents can see the policy logic, the fiscal tradeoffs, and the practical consequences in time to react.

In practice, that means a few things I've been pushing on. Important questions from Council members shouldn't be buried in private email chains if the answers could help the public understand the issue. Major technology decisions should have clear approval and reporting structures. Big policy shifts should come with a plain-language explanation of what changed and why.

It also means elected officials have to do some of the translation work ourselves. The packet isn't written for people with busy lives. Part of the job is turning complex agenda items into clear summaries without hiding the tradeoffs.

Transparency doesn't mean every decision gets slower. It means the public can follow the reasoning, see the tradeoffs, and hold us accountable for the outcome.

Related: see the priority on transparent government, read the transparency FAQ, or send a question directly.

What I’ve done on this

Most of my work so far has been about making city decisions easier to follow: using posts and public comments to translate technical topics into plain language, raising process questions about how key council answers and decision points get surfaced, and pushing for clearer governance around surveillance and other technology decisions so major calls aren't buried in the administrative process. Posting a packet online doesn't solve transparency. It takes active explanation and visible accountability.

Related priority: Transparency and Accountable Government

← All Updates