Our current slate of candidates haven't been aggressive enough in pushing a platform that caters to the voting populous of the city. They haven't even been in my neighborhood knocking on doors. They haven't shared an op-ed piece stating they're in favor of expanding their reach into the community.

A source informed me last week that the notion of having televised city council meetings has presented itself before. The person has even gone as far as to say Time Warner has recorded at least two separate meetings in the past. It was the majority of council who frowned on such openness. A Democratic majority, may I say.

This begs the question: What, if anything, are they all afraid of? Is it about getting more people involved in the process? Expenditures? Do they like having the few involved in order to secure their position?

Here's my opinion. I feel they do not want any more involvement than what they have. They are certain to have the few - and the few are certain to keep them in power. Add more to the mix and they can't control their destiny of keeping power.

President Obama has opened up government to the public far more than any other president in our lifetime. Seeing at the moment our council is Democratic-controlled, you'd think they would follow suit.

But no. Instead, we have the type of government people hate: The backroom, low participation activism that fuels speculation on what is actually being done for our city. And when rumors fume up, it's only then we here from our council members, defending positions. Reactive. Not proactive.

Two forums have been held for this cycle of elections. Turnout averaged in the high 60's. That's not enough. It's about at the level where only the core is involved and we're stuck with what they give us.

When I am out and about in the city, I hear of the need of city council and the mayor focusing on more of the people than themselves. These people work and live in our city. They have jobs that keep them away from city council meetings. They want something done for them that allows them to participate. They keep getting frustrated.

But is this what the current members want?

A study shows that people who push for their government to become more open, more inviting to public that it betters the community as a whole. The study even proves that having televised meetings provides more meaningful participation in city government (page 5).

We have a Web site for the city. To the right, there are announcements of city council meetings.

Here are the remaining scheduled meetings for the year: November 19 and December 17. It's then where you have to "search" for more city council-themed links.

We have agendas posted as well, dating back to August of 2003. And council minutes are available as well.

But, how many people know this off the top of their head? Not many at all. Plus, you have to play with the site a little to get to those places.

City council should have its own page crosslinked and have everything in one spot. There should be announcements made of all meetings, with reminders the day before. At council meetings, those elected to serve us should remind people constantly to visit the Web for information on city council. They should reach out into communities and pull people in from where the attendance is lacking. The members see the audience and they know where people are from. They can be more proactive in pulling people in year round rather than just election time.

What's wrong with having a city council page that is alone. It has all our members in one spot. Provides them the opportunity to converse with the public. Share op-eds. Have a chat room dedicated to Q&A sessions, etc., provide e-mail addresses, phone numbers and give us the opportunity to schedule one-on-one meetings with our members?

Here's something I would like to see. Open government analysis of city departments. Here's just one example of a department being dissected. It can be done here and it can answer a lot of questions the public have. There's also an image used to describe the process of making city government better for all, adapted from Canada of all places (page 26).

And, there was even a ballot study done to show the usefulness of open government.

Identified as key elements in the study in relation to their city, I believe this applies to us as well:

• Fairness and level playing field for all citizens
• Allocation of public resources for the public interest vs. private interest
• Furthering democratic goals of engaging more citizens in decision making
• Effective community and government
• Equity in access to information
• Obligations of public leaders to residents on both openness and the right to privacy

The more open government is, the more people you'll have in the process. It will let all the people of the City of Georgetown know there's a new dawning. It will make people feel more inclusive in decision making. It will kill the notion of the few controlling the majority.

I urge council members to take a more proactive stance on open government ans work towards putting our meetings on television. Work on getting the whole city involved in the decision-making process. Work on being more city-friendly with those who do not participate. Reach out to those who have been left with a bad taste.

If you want the office, do the work for the people who put you there. 365 days a year.