The author of Idaho’s 1974 Open Meeting Law, Gary Ingram, was teasing me in his second email response to my continuing questions. Yes, I can be irritating in my persistence, but Gary has been pleasantly willing to share his views.

My line of questioning started last week after my City’s Pulse Newsletter referring to Gary’s work on the Idaho Open Meeting Law. One of my interested and astute readers emailed me with a strong comment, so I asked for Gary’s response. Here’s the back and forth of this provocative conversation:

Reader: Gary Ingram sponsored the Open Meeting Law when he was in the legislature. LOGICALLY, HE EXEMPTED THE LEGISLATURE.

Gary: Mary, not true. As written and originally adopted, Open legislative meeting required– All meetings of any standing, special or select committee of either house of the legislature of the state of Idaho shall be open to the public at all times.
This language actually placed a higher standard for the legislature in that there was no provision for closed meetings. The Idaho Constitution requires open sessions of the House and Senate.

Reader: Ask Gary about the Republican’s caucus..Very secret. Enough legislators there to constitute a quorum. And it would be naïve to think that decisions are not made there, in way or another.

Gary: No question about it. The majority party is a quorum, but they meet as a political party not a legislative body. Political Parties organize and operate from principles. (At least they used to). Public Policy is developed from the political will or principles of the majority. The Dems used to caucus, too even when they were in the minority and had no responsibility for their actions. Now they make a big show of caucusing with open doors as if whatever policy they talk about will make a difference. I don’t know if anyone has ever written a scholarly treatise on the subject. It would make interesting reading. Caucus was never an issue when I developed the Open Meeting law. Caucuses are called when leadership needs to inform members on strategy for dealing with legislation . Certain strategies must be employed in order that the majority party gets its way. It is called “Majority Rules”, an accepted concept among humankind. An example might be conflicting proposals for highway funding. Presently, the legislature is stalled on an issue of passage of a performance audit and several appropriation measures. Which should happen first? The caucus will inform the members of leadership’s preferred strategy on the floor. I don’t know how it is now but in my day no votes were taken, but attitudes were discerned from discussions in caucus and then a few arms were twisted later, if needed. Keep in mind that the legislature is established by the Idaho Constitution and the Constitution provides that the legislature may establish its own rules of procedure. Thus the legislature is quite unlike any other governing body. (It has often been said that, “The legislature can take the dome off the top of the Capitol”. And they proved it by going underground for more space.) All other governing bodies, except counties, are creations of the legislature but their procedures are subject to legislative enactment, as well.

Geeze Mary, quit making me think so hard. You may print the above for public information, if you wish. I hate to waste all this analysis. It might prompt much discussion.