My Feburary 28, 2009, post titled When Did They Plan to Tell Us? noted the Idaho legislature would be considering legislation to revise the Idaho Open Meeting Law. That legislation, Senate Bill 1142 , was introduced into the legislature today.
This bill as written is a disappointment for those who hoped the legislature might finally put some teeth into enforcing Idaho’s open government laws.
Greetings from Boise. I’ll be presenting written testimony Monday morning on S-1142. I’ll also be contacting individual Senators on my concerns with some of the amendments to the Open Meeting Law. The bill will probably be back in the Senate State Affairs Committee Tuesday and will be on their agenda soon thereafter for deliberation and a vote.
I strongly object to the change in agenda procedure that allows an agenda to be amended during the meeting even though it requires a statement of good faith and and vote to amend the agenda. This is obviously a move to provide convenience to the governing body rather than a benefit to the public. I have pleaded with the Attorney General during the drafting process not to do this, to no avail. If you want to weigh in on this, write or call the members of the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 7, 2009 @ 9:33 am
I also disagree vehemently with allowing a governing body to be able to look out over the audience, see who’s there and not there, and then make a “good faith” amendment to the agenda (including the consent calendar) to include or exclude one or more controversial items. Who blesses a “good faith” effort? Why, the agency’s ever-compliant attorney, of course. Once that blessing has been bestowed, it would be easier to storm the cliffs of Normandy than get the addition declared unlawful.
But even if some citizen catches the participants dirty, it doesn’t matter. The first violation is a freebie. The dirty participants, when and if caught, can cure the violation without fear of penalty under the proposed revisions.
Deputy Attorney General von Tagen blustered in the IBR article that, “Our goal is to get compliance with the Open Meetings Law, not to assess penalties – although that hammer is out there if we can’t get compliance.”
Mr. von Tagen, I wonder how you intend to change your methods to get compliance? The Attorney General’s Office has published open meeting law manuals for years. You sent out a DVD to agencies and schools. You had the programming on Idaho Public Television. And last but not least, Mr. von Tagen, the Idaho Code has been available online and through attorneys for years. I suppose I see your point, though. It’s easier to get compliance with the law if you eviscerate the law. And that’s exactly what you are doing with AG Wasden’s blessing.
But why?
Could it be that AG Lawrence Wasden is planning to seek national office? Could it be AG Lawrence Wasden has calculated that support from the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties, ICRMP, the Idaho School Boards Association, and The Spokesman-Review and its reporter in Boise is more important and valuable than the support of the people who depend on the Idaho Open Meeting Law to keep public officials honest?
Mr. von Tagen’s reference to “that hammer is out there if we can’t get compliance” is pathetically laughable. For a hammer to have any value, it must be wielded by a determined carpenter, and it must be made of steel and not gelatin.
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2009 @ 10:07 am
There is no point in even having an agenda if it can be amended during the meeting. And how is the decision to amend an agenda made? Is it made before the meeting? Are they planning on making that decision legal as well? If so, then they have effectively eviscerated the Open Meeting law.
If Wasden wants to go on to Congress he’s going to have to show some teeth in his current elected position. That means standing up for the law and citizens of the state, not caving to the government-pushed special interests. So far, he doesn’t have my vote.
Comment by Dan — March 7, 2009 @ 10:21 am