Cross-posted at Public Access to Public Hearings
Chairman Jennifer Nassour of the Massachusetts GOP posted the following e-mail today:
Dear Mr. Folkman,
Thank you for joining the MassGOP, the House Republican Caucus and Senate Republican Caucus in our ongoing efforts to bring open and honest government to Massachusetts. Testimony and other appropriate supporting documents submitted to a committee during a public hearing should be available for viewing.
Certainly exceptions can be made to keep certain private information private, as is done in the state’s Public Records Law. But Representative O’Flaherty’s objection would use one narrow example to block the release of all documents on all topics.
Beyond this one issue, I would direct your attention to the fact the Legislature is subject to neither the Open Meeting Law nor the Public Records Law. As such, legislative committees can meet and vote in private for any reason and not release a roll call of the vote, actions that would never occur at a meeting of a city council or board of selectmen. The Legislature is not subject to the public records law that applies to state agencies and city and town governments, so it releases only those documents it deems fit.
You may find interesting a recent column from Commonwealth Magazine, “The real ‘culture of corruption,’” by Maurice Cunningham, an associate professor of political science at UMass-Boston. Professor Cunningham discusses the erosion of public trust when “politicians shut citizens out from decisions that affect them.”
In a system dominated by one party the battle of ideas and priorities is already settled. There is little motivation to go above and beyond the low bar almost cemented in place by the status quo on Beacon Hill. Since I became Chairman I have pushed repeatedly for greater transparency on Beacon Hill in efforts to raise public awareness of the day to day operations of our state government.
It is my belief that the more people know about these affairs, the more seriously voters will weigh their decisions. I am confident that a sober review of a candidate’s record, merit and ideas (and not just the letter next to their name) will break the destructive tradition of reelecting the status quo. As the minority party, and as the agents of change, I feel Republicans have a duty to press for a more progressive and a more responsive way of conducting business on Beacon Hill that better reacts to the wishes of the people it serves.
The ethics reform package introduced by the House GOP is an excellent example of our Party’s dedication to shining a light into the darker corners of our state government. These common sense proposals seek to achieve many of the same objectives that I presume you aim to achieve with this proposed rules change; transparency, openness and honesty.
I cannot help when reading your posts on of all places, the Blue Mass Group website but be reminded of an old saying. “You get what you pay for.” In this case, you get the type of government you support and eventually vote for. I hope you and the other allies in your effort to make these documents public will remember this the next time you step into the ballot booth.
-Sincerely,
Jennifer A Nassour
I think this is an endorsement, but I am going to wait to put Ms. Nassour and the Mass. GOP on the “Hall of Fame” page until I get their say-so. One thing is clear, though: the GOP has thrown down the gauntlet. John Walsh and the Mass. Democratic Party, will you pick it up?
BecauseI am on a single mission—the amendment of Joint Rule 1D—and not worrying about partisan politics as such, I am going to leave Ms. Nassour’s email as it is and not respond to the substance of her suggestion that folks who care about open government should vote Republican, though I think there is a compelling response to be made. I am simply grateful for her position on this issue.
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.
Can I put you in the Hall of Fame?
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.
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.:
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.
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.
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.
Done!
I still sat let’s tweek the law before applying it to the legislature. Some of it really IS too cumbersome and too picky.