The door is starting to slam shut on attempts to open up Langley City Hall.

Councilman Hal Seligson, who joined the council in December amid promises of greater government transparency, has been working on an ad hoc committee that would provide stronger scrutiny of financial and personnel issues. And though the city council unanimously approved the creation of the new committee in February, two council members indicated this week they no longer support the proposal.

The new committee is the first major piece of reform to come out of city hall since Langley was rocked by a series of controversies on finance and personnel matters last year.

Seligson said Thursday he would continue to forge ahead with his committee, which has yet to hold its first meeting, despite the withering support from Langley officials. The council is expected to continue its discussion about the committee at the council meeting on Monday.

“It’s clear to me that there’s going to be a committee,” Seligson said, adding that it wasn’t a surprise that support was waning for the idea, which Seligson has billed as necessary for providing adequate oversight on the use of taxpayer dollars.

“Clearly the vote to seat me on the council was split from the get-go,” he said.

“I’m expecting and, in fact, welcoming differing opinions within the council. I don’t think it’s useful for having the council have unanimity on every issue.

“If there are differences of opinion they need to be expressed. That’s part of what the democratic process is all about,” he said.

New but familiar roadblocks to Seligson’s committee popped at a special council workshop on Wednesday. Leading the opposition was Councilwoman Rene Neff, who said she had been confused when she voted to create the committee last month.

“I think when we voted, I was confused about what I was voting for,” said Neff, who actually was the council member who made the motion to approve the creation of the committee.

Neff said she thought the council would be able to outline the priorities of the new committee, and said it appeared that Seligson had already set out what the group would do.

“It looks like you’ve already got a scope of work here completely outlined,” Neff told Seligson.

But Seligson said the memo was merely a list of suggestions, and he repeated again his earlier vows giving the council much of the control over the committee he will chair, from what it will review to who will serve on the advisory body.

Even so, much of this week’s workshop returned to the laundry list of concerns expressed by other council members and the mayor.

Neff said the one-year life span of the committee was excessive, and added that the committee’s work would overlap with the mayor’s finance committee and would waste staff time.

“I really feel strongly that a year is way too long, and that this scope is way too huge,” she said.

“I also have some concerns about the breadth here,” added Councilman Robert Gilman.

Councilwoman Fran Abel said she never intended to give the committee her endorsement.

“I also have to eat crow about my vote. I had every intention of voting no. And I screwed up,” Abel said.

Neff said the whole idea should be looked at again.

“The way this looks now … I just really don’t feel I would want to go forward with this the way it is,” she said.

“I would either rescind my vote or ask us to … narrow this somehow,” she said. “What you have here is just way too big.”

Council members echoed some of the concerns made by Ursula Roosen-Runge, an early critic of the finance and personnel committee.

In a memo sent to the council on March 13, Roosen-Runge also questioned the life span of the committee, and questioned whether it would do the same work as the mayor’s finance committee.

She also noted Seligson’s proposal to record the meetings and keep them open to the public, something that isn’t required for the city’s other ad hoc committees.

“The ‘rules’ … related to this committee are different than other ad hoc committees, as the proposal requires the public to be notified, the meetings recorded, and the meetings reported to every council meeting,” she said.

“This committee like the other ad hoc committees is not subject to the Opens Meetings Act and I do not believe that it is wise to require it to act that way.

“I think it is a bad idea for the city to set a precedent of operating under the Open Meetings Act rules when it doesn’t need to,” she added. “I believe in the principles of accountability and transparency, but know also that the Open Meetings Act rules often restrict free thinking and innovation. For example, in the case of this committee I think it could be more effective in carrying out its charge if participants could have some free discussion without worrying what might show up in the media.”

Seligson said he wasn’t worried about what would show up in the newspaper if his meetings are held in public.

“I think it’s worth the risk,” he said.

He said the Open Meetings Act gives elected officials the option of meeting in closed-door sessions when they are warranted. Most elected officials are also accustomed to having a microphone nearby, picking up their every word during meetings.

“I would just prefer to err on the side of openness,” he said.