Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Kessler to Propose "Tamed" Executive Session Recording Bill
The (Aberdeen) Daily World reports on House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler's (D) proposal to pass at least a first start to a recording bill.
Yakima Herald-Republic Editorial on Open Gov't Legislation This Session
This fabulous editorial from the Yakima Herald-Republic outlines the issues in this year's open-government legislation. A must-read.
Monday, January 12, 2009
House Bill 1017: Open-Gov't Panel
You will be hearing a lot about House Bill 1017 on og-blog in the coming months. This is the legislative proposal to create a baby step (a feasibility study) about creating a panel to decide open-government issues, which would save citizens the expense of attorneys fees.
Here is a link to HB 1017.
Here is a posting about HB 1017 by Seattle Times editorial writer Kate Riley.
Here is a link to HB 1017.
Here is a posting about HB 1017 by Seattle Times editorial writer Kate Riley.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
McKenna Unveils Open Gov't Legislative Proposals
This Tri-City Herald story describes Attorney General Rob McKenna's (R) open-government legislative proposals, which are supported by State Auditor Brian Sonntag (D). Among them are:
- mandatory Open Public Meetings Act training for local government officials,
- recording of executive sessions after a finding of a previous intentional violation (a compromise from last year), and
- prohibiting "abusive" public records requests from inmates.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
UPDATED II: Smoking Gun: Olympia City Council Emailing Each Other During "Open" Meetings
UPDATE II: The Olympian writes this editorial about the meeting-by-email issue.
__________________
An open public meeting is supposed to be ... open and public. What if the usual discussion and deliberation of a city council meeting were not done in the meeting, where the public can see what's going on, but rather via real-time emails between city council members? What if, for example, this private email exchange between council members went on during a public meeting:
"Are you comfortable if I make a motion removing the Kramer property from the moratorium area, and I think I can get (Councilman) Craig (Ottavelli) to second. And, do you support that? We haven't had a chance to talk, but I am ready to do that."
That would violate the Open Public Meetings Act. A "discussion" or "deliberation" of council business must be conducted in an open meeting. (Unless an exception applies allowing an executive session; no one is claiming any of this could have been done in an executive session.) Obviously, while the meeting is going on, the public cannot access the emails between the council members so the email discussions and deliberations are not "open" to the "public." That was the conclusion of the Attorney General's Open Government Ombudsman, Tim Ford. The city council is ignoring his conclusion. (However, the mayor, to his credit, is supporting the AG Ombudsman's conclusion.)
Here is the amazing story about all this from The Olympian. If you care about open government, read this story.
Note this comment from a city council member who thinks this practice is just fine: "I think it's entirely up to each council member how they conduct themselves." Really? Council members get to unilaterally choose how to conduct city business in public meetings? Then why was the Open Public Meetings Act passed? Is this law "optional"? Perhaps the citizens of Olympia, in response to a law requiring them to pay taxes to the city, could say "It's entirely up to each person how they conduct themselves."
UPDATE: The Tacoma News Tribune unleashes this scorcher of an editorial on the Olympia deliberation-by-email case.
__________________
An open public meeting is supposed to be ... open and public. What if the usual discussion and deliberation of a city council meeting were not done in the meeting, where the public can see what's going on, but rather via real-time emails between city council members? What if, for example, this private email exchange between council members went on during a public meeting:
"Are you comfortable if I make a motion removing the Kramer property from the moratorium area, and I think I can get (Councilman) Craig (Ottavelli) to second. And, do you support that? We haven't had a chance to talk, but I am ready to do that."
That would violate the Open Public Meetings Act. A "discussion" or "deliberation" of council business must be conducted in an open meeting. (Unless an exception applies allowing an executive session; no one is claiming any of this could have been done in an executive session.) Obviously, while the meeting is going on, the public cannot access the emails between the council members so the email discussions and deliberations are not "open" to the "public." That was the conclusion of the Attorney General's Open Government Ombudsman, Tim Ford. The city council is ignoring his conclusion. (However, the mayor, to his credit, is supporting the AG Ombudsman's conclusion.)
Here is the amazing story about all this from The Olympian. If you care about open government, read this story.
Note this comment from a city council member who thinks this practice is just fine: "I think it's entirely up to each council member how they conduct themselves." Really? Council members get to unilaterally choose how to conduct city business in public meetings? Then why was the Open Public Meetings Act passed? Is this law "optional"? Perhaps the citizens of Olympia, in response to a law requiring them to pay taxes to the city, could say "It's entirely up to each person how they conduct themselves."
UPDATE: The Tacoma News Tribune unleashes this scorcher of an editorial on the Olympia deliberation-by-email case.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Spokesman-Review Editorial on Public Records Panel
A bill will be introduced to study the feasibility of a panel to decide public records cases, which would be less expensive and time-consuming for requestors and agencies alike.
The Spokesman-Review editorializes in favor of the bill. The editorial is reprinted below.
________________________
In Washington state, citizens who request public records are sometimes turned down, even when the law is on their side. Their only recourse, going to court, can be expensive, time-consuming and daunting.
So they can either shrug and drop the matter, or initiate legal action and accept the financial burdens that implies – for an uncertain outcome.
Having the law on your side doesn’t mean a lot if you don’t have the resources to set the law in motion.
That’s embarrassing in the state that helped pioneer open-government movements when they were taking off in the 1970s. Some other states, which ultimately followed Washington’s lead by adopting open-records and open-meetings laws, have gone a step further. They have established separate commissions that deal administratively with alleged violations of their sunshine laws.
In Texas, the state attorney general’s office deals with such appeals and issues binding decisions. Connecticut and New Jersey have state commissions that examine complaints and take enforcement action. In these and other places, citizens can expect a process that costs less than hiring a lawyer and paying filing fees and other legal expenses. That and they can get faster answers.
That, at least, is one of the perceptions of people who have talked about a similar structure in Washington. Those perceptions could be tested under a bill that will go before the 2009 legislative session when it convenes Jan. 12 in Olympia.
It’s a nondescript measure, setting up a 13-member state committee to conduct a study of such an agency for this state. The panel would take a look at what’s going on in other states and hear from stakeholders and other citizens here in Washington. By Nov. 15, it would be expected to make its recommendations to the Legislature, the governor, the state auditor and the attorney general.
It’s a modest and thoroughly reasonable proposal, and it has bipartisan backing in the Washington House of Representatives to go along with the support of Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna and Democratic Auditor Brian Sonntag.
Self-government requires open government. Meetings and records that are part of the public process must be accessible to the public. That is fundamental to the political accountability that gives government its legitimacy.
Traditionally, members of the public have seen that truth more clearly than those under scrutiny. Public officials who withhold legitimate information create a troubling situation for citizens whose personal resources are no match for the public resources at the disposal of recalcitrant agencies.
Launching an earnest inquiry into other states’ experience is a plausible step, and it could lead to a more citizen-friendly process in Washington. That’s an outcome every Washingtonian should want.
The Spokesman-Review editorializes in favor of the bill. The editorial is reprinted below.
________________________
In Washington state, citizens who request public records are sometimes turned down, even when the law is on their side. Their only recourse, going to court, can be expensive, time-consuming and daunting.
So they can either shrug and drop the matter, or initiate legal action and accept the financial burdens that implies – for an uncertain outcome.
Having the law on your side doesn’t mean a lot if you don’t have the resources to set the law in motion.
That’s embarrassing in the state that helped pioneer open-government movements when they were taking off in the 1970s. Some other states, which ultimately followed Washington’s lead by adopting open-records and open-meetings laws, have gone a step further. They have established separate commissions that deal administratively with alleged violations of their sunshine laws.
In Texas, the state attorney general’s office deals with such appeals and issues binding decisions. Connecticut and New Jersey have state commissions that examine complaints and take enforcement action. In these and other places, citizens can expect a process that costs less than hiring a lawyer and paying filing fees and other legal expenses. That and they can get faster answers.
That, at least, is one of the perceptions of people who have talked about a similar structure in Washington. Those perceptions could be tested under a bill that will go before the 2009 legislative session when it convenes Jan. 12 in Olympia.
It’s a nondescript measure, setting up a 13-member state committee to conduct a study of such an agency for this state. The panel would take a look at what’s going on in other states and hear from stakeholders and other citizens here in Washington. By Nov. 15, it would be expected to make its recommendations to the Legislature, the governor, the state auditor and the attorney general.
It’s a modest and thoroughly reasonable proposal, and it has bipartisan backing in the Washington House of Representatives to go along with the support of Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna and Democratic Auditor Brian Sonntag.
Self-government requires open government. Meetings and records that are part of the public process must be accessible to the public. That is fundamental to the political accountability that gives government its legitimacy.
Traditionally, members of the public have seen that truth more clearly than those under scrutiny. Public officials who withhold legitimate information create a troubling situation for citizens whose personal resources are no match for the public resources at the disposal of recalcitrant agencies.
Launching an earnest inquiry into other states’ experience is a plausible step, and it could lead to a more citizen-friendly process in Washington. That’s an outcome every Washingtonian should want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
