EDITORIAL:

When a resident sends his or her hard-earned tax dollars to a public entity, that resident has a right to know what the entity is doing with that money.

The organization, in turn, has a responsibility to use those dollars in the best interests of city residents and to conduct business in an open, transparent manner.

In the case of a recent lawsuit, transparency has been lacking. The Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau has spent time (which we all know equals money) fighting and winning a legal battle against a Santa Cruz shop owner to protect a trademark, Surf City USA® (which the bureau has assured residents is in their best interests).

However, the public is not able to view the settlement, as it has been marked confidential. As Richard P. McKee, president emeritus of Californians Aware, pointed out in a March 27 Community Commentary (“Surf City secrecy unfair to public”), this will not do.

“In politics, secrecy breeds distrust, and the people deserve to know what was decided by this protracted litigation,” McKee wrote.

As a response, Shirley Dettloff, chairwoman of the bureau, stated in an April 3 letter to the editor that the bureau would like to reveal the settlement, but because a provision for confidentiality was part of the agreement, the bureau is legally obligated to keep the documents under wraps.

Dettloff, who made a point of noting that McKee is not a Huntington Beach resident, stated, “the bureau cannot release the settlement agreement unilaterally without risking contempt of court and breach of contract.”

Understandable. But since bureau members were present for the settlement agreement, they are the ones who had a hand in making the agreement confidential.

Dettloff said the bureau itself didn’t ask for confidentiality; however, it had to end up in the contract somehow. Even if it was a requirement posed by a lawyer out of habit, the bureau should have flagged that part of the agreement.

California law requires settlements from public entities be disclosed and the terms announced. So, confidentiality should never have been agreed upon in the first place.

To its credit, the bureau has sent requests to both the defendant and judge seeking permission to release the settlement, but to no avail.

We are glad the bureau has taken steps to attempt to legally unseal the documents.

However, this should not have been done “in an attempt to pacify McKee,” as Dettloff states. Rather, these steps should be taken because this is what constitutes an open, trusting relationship between public bodies and residents.

These are steps toward full disclosure that should have been taken before any action could be called into question by an “outsider.”