|
Editorial: Ending ‘walking quorums’
Op-Ed · February 20, 2008
It’s high time Iowa makes “walking quorums” illegal and pinches down on e-mail being used to mask abuse of open meetings laws.
Consider this part two of our take on a new bill being introduced this legislative session that would enhance Iowa’s “sunshine” laws – rules and regulations related to public access to records, open meetings by government bodies and general transparency in how those who spend our tax dollars do their business.
Just as this editorial last week lauded the proposed Iowa Public Information Board, we also applaud the proposal to address “walking” quorums and electronic communication abuses.
“Walking” quorums, often called “roaming” quorums, are those times when members of a government body – a city council or school board, for instance — discuss public business outside of public meetings. It’s often in groups fewer than that number needed for an official meeting.
We’re not talking here about three council members sitting next to each other at a football game, discussing the prospects of this year’s team after chatting about the fall harvest. In other words, we all need to not jump to conclusions when we see a few of our elected officials together outside of a meeting – especially in small towns where what connects us varies.
However, we do need to be concerned about the discussions that may occur outside of a meeting that are related to our business as stakeholders.
For instance, we’ve always been of the belief that two or three elected officials who discuss a city council issue before a meeting does a serious injustice to the citizens. They may not be making any decisions by reaching consensus, but their conversations alone must be made public. It’s of utmost importance that the public – general citizens and the media included – clearly understand how decisions are made. That they get to hear all of the conversations.
Making “walking” quorums illegal would do just that.
And elected officials should be in favor of this proposed legislation because it protects them.
No public official wants to be accused of making smoky-room decisions or, worse, secret deals that pad their pockets or the pockets of their friends. Because “walking” quorums are legal today, the perception exists that such decision-making takes place. Sure, making them illegal won’t stop them entirely. But it will give elected officials more teeth when they say they aren’t involved in the practice.
We hope for all these reasons, “walking” quorums are made illegal this session. That includes such meetings conducted via e-mail. Every time an elected official gets ready to push the “send” button on a message related to their duties, they ought to think, “Would I be violating the law if this message were done in person?” “Yes” should be the answer for electronic “walking” quorums, too.
Yet another important piece of the proposed strengthening of Iowa’s sunshine laws is that public employment job applications of five finalists would be made public records. If there are fewer than five finalists, all would be made public.
Too often, citizens don’t know who their cities, schools and counties are hiring until the final hour.
To be clear, the proposals to put more teeth into our state’s open meetings and records laws isn’t meant to be punitive. We’re not for it because it allows us, as the media, or you, as citizens, to point fingers at every violation.
It’s important because an engaged citizenry needs a transparency in government to be engaged. And government needs an engaged citizenry to get things done.
That’s only possible by letting the sun shine in on the entire process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
