What's New In Open Government...

Continuing with my post from yesterday... here are some more stories that appeared in the first half of September:

Police Logs Aren't Public?
(Sept. 12, 2008, Greater Grafton Blog)
This is a post about the trouble the reporter had when she asked to review the police log at the Grafton Police Department. M.G.L. chapter 41, section 98F, which is set out in the post, requires that police logs be open to the public.

Boston City Council to Fight for Private Meetings
(Sept. 14, 2008, Left of Boston blog)
This is a post on a blog maintained by a student. It is another piece about the Boston City Council's complaints about the Open Meeting Law.

Sewer Plan Too Large and Costly
(Sept. 15, 2008, SouthCoastToday.com)
Although this article is about a dispute over the installation of sewer systems in Mattapoisett, the author mentions the problems he had with obtaining information from the local government:

I am opposed to the proposed system because the town has yet to release a list of properties that will be connected to it. I have been forced to request the data through the Massachusetts Public Records Law, yet the town has yet to comply. Why would the town withhold information? Perhaps the data the town has used is distorted.

Wishes He Was in Ipse Dixit
Sept. 15, 2008, Marry in Massachusetts blog)
Another piece about the Boston City Council's complaints about having to comply with the Open Meeting Law, with a little background on some of the players.

Next posting: What issues arose during the second half of September?

More On Boston City Council.

In case you missed it, the Boston Herald editorial staff published an editorial last Thursday on the Boston City Council's announcement that it was examining the possibility of obtaining an exemption from the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. Here is one quote of note from the piece:

The fact is that councilors, just like every other municipal official in Massachusetts, can meet privately for specific purposes - discussing strategy on union negotiations, for example. Of course, many local officials already hide behind that “executive session” veil improperly. So if anything the state’s Open Meeting Law ought to be strengthened, both to include the Legislature (which exempts itself from the law) and to punish those
who abuse it.

Open Meeting Law News

After my last post, I decided to take a break from writing about open government so I could focus more time on my service on a local charter commission. I was elected to the Saugus Charter Commission which is tasked with examining the form of government in Saugus and proposing any necessary changes to the voters. I have never served in an elected position before and it has been a very interesting experience for me. Although the Charter Commission's work is not yet completed, I have a little more time to turn my attention back to one of my favorite causes: transparency in government.

Maybe it is just me, but it sure does seem like reports on Open Meeting Law violations or issues have been increasing in frequency over the past 6 months. Today the Boston Herald's Edward Mason is reporting that the Boston City Council, "was considering an internal report recommending they ask the Legislature for an exemption." ("City Councilors: Report a Bid For More 'Clarity'") Dan Kennedy on Media Nation has a posting about the previous related story by Mason from yesterday ("Secret Society: City Council Mulls End to Open Meetings"). Sam Bayard of Citizen Media Project also has a post about the story. ("Boston City Council: What Are They Hiding?")

In the Mason article published today, Council President Maureen Feeney is quoted as saying, "All we are trying to do is find more clarity. No one here wants to circumvent the process." Although it is hard to believe that the Boston City Council does not understand the Open Meeting Law given their on-going court case, I can attest from my limited experience serving on a local board that there is confusion out there about what the Open Meeting Law requires and what it does not allow. (And yes, there are some people who find it easier just to ignore the law.) The response to this problem, however, is not to start allowing more exemptions because it is just too hard to comply with the law. Rather, the law should be strengthened so that local officials will have more of an incentive to learn what the law requires and to comply with those requirements.

The Mason article also reports that Council President Feeney and others stated that "the law, which requires the public be notified when a majority of councilors meet, hamstrings them."

Merriam-Webster defines "hamstring" as "to make ineffective or powerless." Although the Open Meeting Law makes decision making more difficult for some elected officials because their decision making is subject to public scrutiny, the law also makes it easier for the public to hold their elected officials accountable. Yes, that means that elected officials have less power, but in a democracy, the people have the power and the Open Meeting Law ensures that they continue to hold it.