Bad news for media conspiracy theorists: Idaho newsies aren't all on the same side on a bill to put teeth into the state's Open Meeting Law.
Some of my colleagues are launching an off-the-mark and 11th-hour campaign to derail a compromise bill that would help ensure that government agencies do their work in public view.
The chief critics are Tom Grote, editor and publisher of the Star-News weekly in McCall; and Bob Hall, lobbyist for the Idaho Newspaper Association, which represents weeklies. They don't like two pieces of Senate Bill 1142, the Open Meetings Law tuneup that unanimously passed the Senate last week:
• They don't like language that would allow an agency to amend its agenda during a meeting, "upon a motion that states the reason for the amendment and states the good faith reason the agenda item was not included in the original agenda posting."
• They don't like the language that allows an agency to "cure" an Open Meetings Law violation by voiding all actions taken at an illegally closed meeting. The Star-News labeled this a "get out of jail free" card for agencies who break the law.
I just think they're missing the big picture.
This whole law — as currently written and interpreted by the Idaho Supreme Court — is a "get out of jail free" card. An elected official must "knowingly" violate the law in order to face penalties. Enforcing this law no longer requires prosecutorial skills; it requires telepathic skills.
I'd rather have a law that requires agencies to work in the open. One that doesn't reward officials that are ignorant of the law. One that encourages officials to study up on their legal requirements for transparency.
That's why I support this bill. And as vice president of the Idaho Press Club, I'm pleased that our group has been involved in this rewrite.
No, it's not a perfect bill. The "curing" language isn't great, and I'm not thrilled that agencies can change agendas on the fly — although they would have to do so in open session, which serves as a deterrent.
I too could poke at imperfections. But I'd rather do my bit to make this law more workable.
Frankly, conspiracy theorists, Idaho media groups have done this for years. We bicker amongst ourselves and too often stand in the path of laws that better serve all Idahoans' interest in open government.
When we complain about weaknesses in Idaho open-government laws, we need to look in a mirror. We are too often the demanders of perfection, too often the enemies of the good.
Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials.
Become a follower @KevinRichert. On Facebook, join the Idaho Statesman
Opinion Page Group for updates.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Well, you asked for it or something and they worked overtime?
----------
I am FOREIGNOREGONIAN!!! HEAR MY MIGHTY bunch of grumbles
Guidelines
"We encourage lively, open debate but ask that you remain on topic."
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Then go read your own archives, it's in there.
----------
I am FOREIGNOREGONIAN!!! HEAR MY MIGHTY bunch of grumbles
Have things been that rough? I have to go search now...
----------
I am FOREIGNOREGONIAN!!! HEAR MY MIGHTY bunch of grumbles
Here's at least two.
Open meetings law lacks clear direction for officials Mon Apr 3, 2006 The old saying, "you get what you pay for" immediately comes to mind when it´s applied to the "free legal advice" Kevin Richert recently offered to the Ada County Board of Commissioners (edit... more...
GOP caucus considers public-record rule change Thu Mar 13, 2003 Lawmakers would be allowed to keep letters, e-mail secret Gregory Hahn Staff The Senate Republican caucus spent about half of an 80-minute closed-door meeting Wednesday discussing a proposal that w... more...
You have the right to follow your government agencies' paper trails Wed Mar 16, 2005 I take a hard line when it comes to open government. And without apology. All Idahoans deserve to be able to read public records and attend public meetings. It´s your government -- and your r... more
For many others, see http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=idahostatesman&p_multi=IDSB%7C&p_product=IDSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Open%20Meeting%20Law%20+%20Kevin%20Richert&s_dispstring=Open%20Meeting%20Law%20+%20Kevin%20Richert&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_useweights=no&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=
----------
I am FOREIGNOREGONIAN!!! HEAR MY MIGHTY bunch of grumbles
Open Meeting Law rewrite
Kevin, consider for a moment that perhaps it is you who is "off-the-mark".
The two examples you cite as objections by your wayward colleagues, have nothing to do with the resolution of the so called "knowingly" issue that you cite in your editorial as essential.
You should know that the bill has four elements. The first element allows more convenience to the governing bodies on setting agendas and less transparency for the public.
The Open Meeting Law is all about public access to the development of public policy, not convenience to the governing body. That's what I hoped to accomplish when I wrote it 35 years ago. I'm disappointed that I have to preach to you about this as I have always held the media in high regards as the gatekeepers of the public's right-to-know.
The second element of the bill rearranges language for going into executive session.
The third element is a clumsy, complicated, two part process to supposedly resolve the so called "knowingly" issue which was created with 1992 amendments sponsored by your lobbyist at the time.
The final element is new and allows a cure with the assumption that governing bodies generally screw up by accident. Not my experience and I've been watching local government work for over 35 years.
Nice to find out after the Senate hearings and floor debate that the senators were lied to about media support. Your readers should review the committee minutes and listen to the floor debate. The record is clear that the news organizations you criticize were presented testimony as supporting S-1142 when as you point out they were not and justifiably so.
He's got at least six years worth of gripe about it...
What desk were you hiding under?
----------
I am FOREIGNOREGONIAN!!! HEAR MY MIGHTY bunch of grumbles
Sneakers
Kevin writes, "..and I'm not thrilled that agencies can change agendas on the fly — although they would have to do so in open session, which serves as a deterrent.""
***
I think you are being naive Kevin. A political 'group' could intentionally change the agenda to avoid public comment.
HYPOTHETICALLY ACHD Commissioners don't want to have public comment on the Transit Center. So next Tuesday, their is one supporter of ACHD's proposal sitting in the audiance and requests public comment on the Transit Center. Commissioners say, "let's change our agenda". Supporter speaks. And then the next month after the proposal was voted for and approved, the newspaper reporter asks, "don't you need public comment on that?".
Oh, we did that last month and we only had ONE comment in support of it.
I dont' think it's too much of a stretch that a small govt board, council commission would abuse this clause. And ACHD's recent actions are a PERFECT example. "We hold a higher standard of public input." There will be public comment. And sure enough public comment was DENIED at the respective meeting.
****
Some times you have ONE chance to get a bill correct. Otherwise when you want to come back next year to fix the weaknesses, you might not get that chance.
Nobody knows where to put the stupid thing; that might be ideal
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance