Open Meeting Law
Oct 16, 2006 20:36 | Transparency in
Government
Three Boston registered voters, Kevin McCrea,
Kathleen Devine and I, successfully sued the Boston
City Council last year for gross violations of the
Open Meeting Law in their vote to perpetuate the BRA's Urban
Renewal Plans. We sued the Council again
this May for violations of the Law in their
process of voting to approve a pay raise for
themselves, the Mayor and certain City Hall
employees (see City Council Compensation Study
on Kevin's home page).
Council President Michael Flaherty still insists that the Councilors are guiltless, and more than that -- that the Law gets in the way of their work -- as he keeps calling it, the "sausage factory" of getting to consensus. (Maybe he doesn't realize that the term mocks this kind of legislative process -- it means that if we knew what dirty dealing went into our laws, we wouldn't accept them.)
The Open Meeting Law is an important effort to protect the public from harmful behind-closed-door dealings of our governmental bodies; a state Attorney General Guideline clearly explains the intent. But the law as written has some flaws: it's hard to enforce, and in the end just fines the taxpayers for the misdeeds of their elected officials. Some legislators have been working to reform the Law, to clarify what is a "meeting," what activities are covered, and what are the penalties. All States have such laws, and some cities, like San Francisco, have their own that are useful models.
Have you had any experiences with such violations? Have you been kept out of meetings of governmental bodies, by lack of posting or even by physical barriers? Do you have evidence that a vote taken at the body's public meeting is really a rubber stamp of closed-door meetings of the members? If you feel that legal action is necessary, you can read our documents on Kevin McCrea's blog. How can we open up the people's business to the people?
And currently, the state legislature is not even subject to the Open Meeting Law; how can we make the Law apply to the very state legislators who control its passage?
Should we have an ABN community workshop on this topic, and work for state action on a better law and and better enforcement?
Council President Michael Flaherty still insists that the Councilors are guiltless, and more than that -- that the Law gets in the way of their work -- as he keeps calling it, the "sausage factory" of getting to consensus. (Maybe he doesn't realize that the term mocks this kind of legislative process -- it means that if we knew what dirty dealing went into our laws, we wouldn't accept them.)
The Open Meeting Law is an important effort to protect the public from harmful behind-closed-door dealings of our governmental bodies; a state Attorney General Guideline clearly explains the intent. But the law as written has some flaws: it's hard to enforce, and in the end just fines the taxpayers for the misdeeds of their elected officials. Some legislators have been working to reform the Law, to clarify what is a "meeting," what activities are covered, and what are the penalties. All States have such laws, and some cities, like San Francisco, have their own that are useful models.
Have you had any experiences with such violations? Have you been kept out of meetings of governmental bodies, by lack of posting or even by physical barriers? Do you have evidence that a vote taken at the body's public meeting is really a rubber stamp of closed-door meetings of the members? If you feel that legal action is necessary, you can read our documents on Kevin McCrea's blog. How can we open up the people's business to the people?
And currently, the state legislature is not even subject to the Open Meeting Law; how can we make the Law apply to the very state legislators who control its passage?
Should we have an ABN community workshop on this topic, and work for state action on a better law and and better enforcement?
|