Comments on: Chairman Nassour More Or Less Endorses Our Effort

By: tedf

tedf — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:58:56 +0000

1. The Joint Committee on the Judiciary is the only committee not to have made rules and filed them with the Clerk. I haven’t said that it is the only committee that refuses to make written testimony available, nor do I know whether or not that is so. Also, I am proposing a change in the rules of the legislature, not of a single committee.

2. I agree that this should not be a partisan issue. Both parties should be in favor of what I am proposing. But like it or not, our party controls the legislature and the committees. So if there is not enough openness on Beacon Hill, it is the Democrats that can do something about it. My purpose in inviting the GOP to endorse the rule change is not to benefit the GOP, but to give our own party’s leaders a reason to do what’s right, declare victory, and move on. As several folks have said, this is a minor rule change. It should be a no-brainer.

By: christopher

christopher — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:53:53 +0000

I still sat let’s tweek the law before applying it to the legislature. Some of it really IS too cumbersome and too picky.

By: tedf

tedf — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:56:44 +0000

self-serving attempt to gain entry to said Hall of Fame

Done!

By: joshcutler

joshcutler — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:01:09 +0000

I agree very much with Ted’s effort. This shouldn’t be so difficult and I’m sure there are many other Democrats out there who agree.

Can’t seem to find the link, but here’s copy of Patriot Ledger op/ed I wrote last August that is apropos (and a self-serving attempt to gain entry to said Hall of Fame

Open meetings? Hey legislators, practice what ye preach!
Time to apply Open Meeting Law to State Legislature
By Josh Cutler

In the wake of another lawmaker scandal the Massachusetts Legislature passed an update to the state’s Open Meeting Law that took affect in July. While the merits of this latest change are open to debate, the overall success of the Open Meeting Law is not.

Since it was first enacted in 1958, the Open Meeting Law has ensured that the people’s business is conducted in public. Meetings must be posted in advance, agendas and minutes must be made available and meetings must be conducted out in the open. For that reason the law is sometimes referred to as the “Sunshine Act” and it’s an apt metaphor. Good government, like a flower garden, requires sunshine to flourish.

In certain cases there is a legitimate need to conduct government business in private, such as for collective bargaining negotiations or discussing personnel matters, and the Open Meeting also provides for that.

It’s not a perfect system, but it has worked pretty well over the years and we are all the better for it. But there’s just one problem. While the Open Meeting Law applies to municipal government, including city councils, school boards and boards of selectmen, as well as many state agencies, the Massachusetts State Legislature is exempt.

That’s right, the governmental body that wrote the Open Meeting Law exempted itself from its requirements! Few areas of government are more in need of transparency than our state legislature and yet they decided what works in 351 cities and towns wouldn’t work for them.

The recent debate over casino gambling and slot parlors is a case in point. All the important decisions were made behind closed doors in private. The public was shut out of the process. It’s not even accurate to say that our voice was heard through our elected officials because in most cases even rank and file legislators had no idea what was happening. That’s no way to govern.

This is wrong on many levels, but there is a solution: apply the Open Meeting Law to the legislature. Let’s make our state representatives follow the same rules our school committee members, selectmen, and city councilors have to follow. Make conference committees open to the public. Require roll calls and publicly posted minutes for legislative hearings. Instead of hashing out deals in closed-door caucus or in the members lounge, let’s make our representatives actually debate out in the open, on the floor of the House. Legitimate issues that demand privacy can still be discussed behind closed doors.

Cities and towns have learned to operate under the Open Meeting Law over the last 40 years. So, too, can our state legislature. Ask yourself this: what form of government is more accessible, effective and responsive –– your local town hall or Beacon Hill?

The Open Meeting Law may be cumbersome at times, but that’s democracy. It may not always be pretty, but as one famed practitioner remarked, it’s the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

By: afertig

afertig — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:32:00 +0000

What you proposed is a perfectly sensible, reasonable request for transparency. I’m on board.

But come on. In an earlier post, you said that this committee was the one committee that hadn’t posted its rules.:

Question: I’d like a copy of the rules submitted by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, please.
Answer: Um, they’re the one committee we’re chasing. We have rules on file for pretty much every other committee.

Surely we can differentiate a problem of party with a problem with one committee, especially since all the other committees are doing their responsibility.

Should there be more transparency? Yes! Of course, a million times yes. And this is hilarious. But to make this a partisan D vs. R issue is just boring grandstanding. Asking John Walsh to get involved is inane.

Besides, Republicans — nationwide — have been the ones to thwart transparency and love to cozy up to business interests behind closed doors.

By: AmberPaw

AmberPaw — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:46:45 +0000

And in fact, I have been working via testimony and appellate cases on this issue for a loooooong time – I believe the kind of injustice suffered by a two year old, as shown in Adoption of Zaria http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdihja&searchTerm=fcSI.STDb.GbfD.CaaI&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW would not have occurred, ever, but for the closed, impounded even when there is no need, secretive nature of juvenile court proceedings. Such cases should be open as are all other cases but for a Motion to Impound. But that is another discussion for another time.

By: tedf

tedf — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:53:22 +0000

Can I put you in the Hall of Fame?

By: AmberPaw

AmberPaw — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:50:23 +0000

Having the legislature immune to ALL open meetings laws is bad for everyone – and Ted Folkman’s step by step work starting with one committee deserves our support. I am not a legislator, nor do I speak for the Democratic Party, but I am a member of the Democratic State Committee, and as many here know have been raising this issue for some time, years in fact – Ted welcome aboard. I don’t have a “Hall of Fame” but I know that legislators, like the rest of us, do behave differently, and better, when they know others are watching.

By: Chairman Nassour More Or Less Endorses Our Effort « Public Access to Public Hearings!

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:42:34 +0000

[...] Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group [...]