[Spam] Re: [Vision2020] Open meeting and public records laws

[lfalen]

Tom
In reguard to the legislature all committee meeting should be open, except for those that have to do with security. Party Caucus are a bit different. You could argue either way whether they are public or private. I believe the Democratic Caucuses are open and that the Republican Caucuses are not. Any organization that is 100% private and does not receive any public money should be able to make their own decision on whether to hold their meeting in private or have them  open to the public. I personally do not see any reason for private meeting by any one.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Tom Ivie the_ivies3 at yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:53:12 -0800
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] Open meeting and public records laws

> Roger,
>   I am curious about what your stance may be on holding a Caucus.  Do you think that constitutes a public meeting and should be open?  (I am referring to the state level of government in regards to this question) .  I am asking not as to "bait" you on or anything, this is a topic that I am seriously interested in and not quite sure where I stand on it. -Tom
> 
> lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>   
> Some of you know that I have been working on changes to these two laws.I started an initiative to close some of the loop hole and to increase the penalties in the Open Meeting Law. I had completed the first two stages in the initiative process. I was ready to have petitions printed and distributed through out the state when I injured my leg. I was out of time any was as I would have had to get signatures from 6% of those that voted in the last election by April 31. There just is not enough time to do this, So I am puting it on hold until after the november election and will shoot for the 2008 election.
> 
> I also have 4 bill in the Senate that Gary Schroeder has introduced for me. IT looks like they will all die in committee.(Tom trailhas introdused billfor the last three years also. They never got out of committee.)
> These are S1284 This bill would give some rights to volunteers. There have been some legitimate concerns raised about it. It will need to be amended to take care of those concerns. S1286 would increase the penalties for violating the Public Records Law. S1287 would increase the penalties for violating the Open Meeting Law. S1288 would mandate that a change in meeting site be posted on the outside of the building at the original meeting site. S1289 would mandate that all public meeting be recorded and become a part of the public record.
> 
> There are other changes that need to be made. The only recourse to violations of the Public Record Law is the district cout. This costs money. Knowing most people will not do this encourages the law to be flaunted. This needs to be changed to place the enforcement responsibly with the Attorney General. There are other loop holes in the Public Record Law that need closed. Some of these relate to personnel records.
> 
> Since it does not seem likely that any thing can be passed in the legislature, I will be working on taking most of these directly to the people by way of initiatives.
> 
> Any one who would like to provide input, please let me know. I am already working with three people in southern Idaho and some newspaper people.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roger Falen
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
> http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 
> 
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
>