Home » Opinion » Editorials
Inconvenient: Keep public meetings public
Making work more convenient for government officials is a common excuse for limiting the public's access to public information. It is always an excuse, never a justification. When a new bill that would amend the state's right-to-know law comes up for discussion in the next legislative session, lawmakers must not pretend otherwise.
Rep. Mary Beth Walz, D-Bow, has put forth a legislative service request (what bills are called before the session begins) that would exempt from the public meetings law a board's discussion of its legal advice. It would be a sweeping change that would remove from public view too much of the public's business.
Under current law, a board's "consultation with legal counsel" is not considered a public meeting, and therefore is not subject to the right-to-know law. In 2009 case involving the Madison Planning Board, the state Supreme Court concluded that the language plainly intended such meetings to include the actual consultation with the attorney. A meeting to discuss the attorney's advice - without the attorney present - is not a consultation and therefore would be a public meeting, the court ruled.
Walz' proposed legislation would make discussions of the attorney's advice, not consultations with the attorney, exempt from the public meetings law. Her reasoning is that many small towns share attorneys and the current requirement makes scheduling these sessions difficult. In other words, adhering to the right-to-know law can be a hassle, so the law must be amended to accommodate public officials.
But her proposed solution is worse than the problem. To avoid the inconvenience posed by having to schedule meetings with busy attorneys, she would gut an important protection against closed-door meetings. Walz would let public bodies meet in private to discuss matters that now must be discussed in public.
House Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff defended Walz's proposal to expand the closed-door meeting. "At some point, you have to trust these officials not to abuse it," he said. No, you don't. If we could trust public officials not to abuse their power, we would not need things like constitutions and tightly written right-to-know laws. Weakening those laws to needlessly sweep more public business into the shadows is a bad idea.
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Pat Buchanan: The high price of papal popularity - 0
- Kathy Sullivan: Scott Brown does not get what 'pro-choice' really means - 13
- Deroy Murdock: Scott Brown's good case for a Republican Senate - 1
- Jonah Goldberg: Rise of the Clinton Democrats (not really) - 0
- Your Turn, NH -- Kelley Tambouris: I am a Manchester teacher, and I need more support - 20
- Political correctness could wind up killing a lot of Americans - 4
- Charles Krauthammer: Ebola vs. civil liberties - 0
- Wayne F. Lesperance Jr.: Republicans are poised to win the Senate... maybe - 3
- George Will: The fictitious war on women - 0
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Another View -- John H. Sununu: Voters, pick a governor who is serious about the Pledge - 1
- Team Obama: Faking right, voting left - 0
- Preventing riots: What should Keene do? - 0
- Manchester mayor asks aldermen to hold abandonded property owners accountable - 0
- Residents given Londonderry playing field priority - 0
- NH has 1,300 guardrail ends targeted in federal safety suit - 0
- Carignan promoted to deputy police chief in Nashua - 0
- Manchester Crimewatch: Meat cleaver has key role in threats, assault case - 0
- Mass. man charged with robbing Tobacco Junction store in Pelham - 0
Locked in a dead heat, Shaheen, Brown spar
NH's back-road rest areas fading away
Fall hikers throughout NH put on notice
Team Obama: Faking right, voting left
Keene riots a focus of gubernatorial debate
Preventing riots: What should Keene do?
Fixing Obamacare: Shaheen offers no way out