Press-Republican

EDITORIAL: Openness must be the law

You'd think that, in this era of so-called public enlightenment and government transparency, pressure wouldn't need to be applied to wring more openness out of government. You'd think that any legislator standing in the way of access would be roundly drummed out of office.

Yet we're seeing, surprisingly, that there are still areas in which government wants to restrict the free flow of information between itself and the people it is hired to serve.

Curiously, a number of bills are before the State Legislature now that would increase the public's access to government, and those bills are stalled. The public must exert whatever influence it can to get these pieces of legislation moving. Ask your senators and Assembly members where they stand on these bills. Ask why there has not yet been movement to get them signed into law. Ask what they plan to do about it.

  Assembly bill A.10093/Senate bill S.3195-B would authorize audio-visual coverage of open meetings. Sponsors are RoAnn Destito in the Assembly and David Valesky in the Senate.

Why not have audio-visual equipment in a meeting? The law says meetings must be open to the public, which enables a reporter with a notebook and pen to record the proceedings. Videotape is only an extension — with more precision — of that.

  Senate bill S.7065 and Assembly bill A.2046, which are similar but not identical, gives judges more tools when a government body is found to have illegally met in secret. The Senate bill is by Suzi Oppenheimer and the Assembly bill by Susan John.

Gov. Patterson vetoed the bill last year, but it has been rewritten in hopes of satisfying him.

  Assembly bill A.9911 (Amy Paulin) and Senate bill S.6849 (Craig Johnson) would require records to be discussed at an open meeting be available upon request whenever possible prior to the meeting.

Both bills are in committee.

  Senate bill S.3348 (Johnson) and Assembly bill A.7187 (Brian Kavanagh) includes advisory committees under the requirements in the Open Meetings Law. The committees may be created by government bodies, by executive order, by state or local law or by order of the governor.

The bill expands the definition of a public body for the purpose of seeing that more meetings are open to the public. As stated by the bills' sponsors, "It is not uncommon for members of the public to be barred from government decision-making that occurs in public forums, whether in a body created by executive order or in advisory committees. Expanding the definition of public body will ensure greater transparency in government and a more informed, engaged public."

The bill is on the Senate calendar and in Assembly committee.

We have high hopes for all of these measures. Why on earth would anybody inside or outside government prefer that those protections of public rights be denied?