[Vision2020] Court Backs Closed Meetings

[Art Deco]

Kai,

Perhaps it is time for a citizen initiative on this matter.

W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kai Eiselein, LatahEagle Editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
To: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020" 
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Court Backs Closed Meetings


> For once I have to agree with Mr. Hansen.
> The 3-2 decision by the Idaho Supreme Court regarding closed committee
> meetings in the state legislature will allow closed door shenanigans to
> begin in earnest.
> The Idaho Press Club, of which I am a member, has battled for the last 
> three
> years to try to keep this from happening.
> A sad day, indeed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:16 AM
> To: Moscow Vision 2020
> Subject: [Vision2020] Court Backs Closed Meetings
>
>
>>From today's (March 21, 2006) Spokesman Review -
>
> I don't care what excuse the Idaho courts apply,
>
> Closed-door legislature is NOT democracy.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Court backs closed meetings
> Ruling rejects arguments from Idaho media
>
> Erica Curless
> Staff writer
> March 21, 2006
>
> The Idaho Constitution allows the Legislature to close committee meetings 
> to
> the public, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting arguments by 
> the
> media that lawmakers should conduct business in the open.
>
> The 3-2 decision is a blow to the Idaho Press Club, which sued the
> Legislature for closing seven committee meetings in 2003 and 2004. The 
> press
> club, which was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, 
> Idaho
> Conservation League and Idaho League of Women Voters, argued that the
> Legislature violated the state constitution and that founders intended the
> meetings to remain open because that's where the majority of legislative
> work is done. Committees also are the only place where the public can 
> affect
> legislation by testifying and giving instruction to elected officials.
>
> The high court upheld a Fourth District Court ruling that legislative
> committees - such as the House and Senate resources, tax and local
> government committees - don't do the business of the Legislature, so the
> constitution does not require them to keep their meetings open to the
> public. The decision determines that "business" is conducted only when 
> there
> is a majority of the House or Senate present.
>
> The news comes as the 2006 legislative session is approaching its end, but
> Majority Leader Sen. Bart Davis said there perhaps is time to clarify when
> it's appropriate for committees to close meetings.
>
> Currently both the House and Senate can close committee meetings for any
> reason.
>
> Davis believes, as he said most lawmakers do, that there is rarely a need 
> to
> close a committee meeting to the public but that the Legislature should 
> have
> the ability to do so in some specific instances such as when discussing
> terrorism or state security.
>
> It's those parameters that Davis needs to work out with the Democrats and
> the public, including the press club, which represents more than 200 
> radio,
> television and newspaper journalists.
>
> If it's not done by the end of the session, which might adjourn next week,
> Davis fears it will become a controversial campaign issue because every
> legislator is up for re-election. Yet if the rules aren't amended this
> session, Davis said lawmakers will take up the issue when the 2007
> Legislature convenes in January.
>
> Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett of Ketchum is disappointed with the
> decision and said there are fundamental differences between the Democrats
> and the Republicans and he doesn't see where amending the House and Senate
> rules will make much difference.
>
> "They'll show it to us and ask us what we think," Stennett said about
> proposed rule changes. "But you're either for open meetings or you're 
> not."
>
> Press Club President Betsy Z. Russell, a Spokesman-Review reporter, said
> even though the club lost its lawsuit, it still put focus on the need to
> conduct legislative business in the open.
>
> She pointed out that the dissenting opinion, by Justices Jim Jones and 
> Roger
> Burdick, states that the constitution always requires openness. She added
> lawmakers haven't closed a single committee meeting since the lawsuit was
> filed.
>
> "If this case prompts the Legislature to look at how it operates and 
> become
> open to the citizens, then it was well worth it," she said.
>
> The majority opinion, written by Justice Daniel Eismann, acknowledges the
> policy arguments made by the press club and the three other groups to why
> legislative committee meetings should always be open. Eismann said the 
> court
> can't use policy arguments to give the constitution meaning but that the
> Legislature can use these reasons when deciding whether to permit its
> committee meetings to be closed.
>
> That policy may also support a constitutional amendment to specifically
> define when and if legislators should close committee meetings, he wrote.
>
> It takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate followed by a vote
> of the people to pass a constitutional amendment. Russell said it's 
> unlikely
> the Legislature would vote to put restrictions on itself. Instead the 
> press
> club is ready to start working with leadership on a more restrictive rule
> for when the public can be barred from committee meetings.
>
> Former Republican Rep. Gary Ingram wrote the Open Meeting Law and fears 
> that
> with this decision lawmakers may try to repeal the sections of the law.
>
> "It seems to me the Legislature that we currently have is too willing to
> look for ways to get around open meetings law rather than be guardians 
> about
> it," said Ingram, who lives in Coeur d'Alene.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> *******************************************************
>
> And why shouldn't the rich pay taxes?
>
> "The people that write laws are greedy.  They need money to buy votes. 
> What
> better way to get it than to extract it, by force of law, from the
> relatively few who can afford the nicer things in life.  If you can buy
> something nice then you can pay more taxes so that politicians can give
> something to the 'poor' and take a cut for themselves."
>
> - Varnel W. (March 20, 2006)
>
> *******************************************************
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1452 (20060320) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>