Waterbuffalo
02-10-2008, 09:24 PM
I posted this so that people could comment to their elected representatives from On high
to the the local City Council member to Board of Clark County commissioner.
They would love an e-mail, letter or personal phone call please if you feel one way or the other..
You can find this piece here:
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/02/02102008_Record-the-Meetings--Bipartisan-support-of-brilliantly-written-bill-should-lead-to-approval-by-legislators.cfm
Sunday, February 10, 2008
It's difficult to imagine how one could disagree with a bill that requires audio tapes of executive sessions, when those tapes could be heard only by a judge, and when those tapes could be made public only when a judge finds wrong-doing. And how could one disagree with a bill that has bipartisan support from highly respected Republican State Attorney General Rob McKenna, Democratic State Auditor Brian Sonntag, two Republican state representatives on a key House committee and two Democratic lawmakers on the same committee?
But then there's the twisted logic of Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt. Last week Boldt told the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs: "When you put a tape recorder in front of an executive session, you may not say that uncomfortable question." Boldt's comment prompts us to repeat our question: How could a tape recorder at a meeting be a problem when attorneys are present, when the only outside person who could listen to that tape would be a judge, and when the public would learn about the proceedings only if the judge finds wrongdoing?
Mark Brown, lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, said in opposing House Bill 3292: "I'm not saying people haven't strayed in executive session. I'm saying it's the exception to the rule." That might be true, but Sonntag found more than 460 violations of executive session rules between 2004 and 2007.
McKenna said, "The advice given by attorneys will be protected. The standard (for bringing a challenge) is fairly high for the challenger and the judge."
Because both city- and county-government associations put up such a stink before the committee, HB 3292 appeared to have died Tuesday when it failed to come up for a vote. However, the bill was resurrected Thursday night, thanks in part to the efforts of state Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger. He said in a statement after the committee advanced the bill that he supported "keeping government accountable to citizens ? This bill would ensure that business done behind closed doors is protected unless there is serious question about what was said."
There's another point to consider. Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there, just to document how properly they're performing their jobs and to remove any doubt to the contrary?
The only reason any public official could oppose this bill would be fear of doing something wrong, and if that happens, wouldn't it be best if a judge and then the public found out about it?
HB 3292 is brilliantly crafted. It provides as much protection for proper behavior as it provides scrutiny of improper behavior. Legislators should stop listening to the cowering whiners and pass the bill. The public has the right to know about violations of executive session rules. "Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there?"
to the the local City Council member to Board of Clark County commissioner.
They would love an e-mail, letter or personal phone call please if you feel one way or the other..
You can find this piece here:
http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/02/02102008_Record-the-Meetings--Bipartisan-support-of-brilliantly-written-bill-should-lead-to-approval-by-legislators.cfm
Sunday, February 10, 2008
It's difficult to imagine how one could disagree with a bill that requires audio tapes of executive sessions, when those tapes could be heard only by a judge, and when those tapes could be made public only when a judge finds wrong-doing. And how could one disagree with a bill that has bipartisan support from highly respected Republican State Attorney General Rob McKenna, Democratic State Auditor Brian Sonntag, two Republican state representatives on a key House committee and two Democratic lawmakers on the same committee?
But then there's the twisted logic of Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt. Last week Boldt told the House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs: "When you put a tape recorder in front of an executive session, you may not say that uncomfortable question." Boldt's comment prompts us to repeat our question: How could a tape recorder at a meeting be a problem when attorneys are present, when the only outside person who could listen to that tape would be a judge, and when the public would learn about the proceedings only if the judge finds wrongdoing?
Mark Brown, lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, said in opposing House Bill 3292: "I'm not saying people haven't strayed in executive session. I'm saying it's the exception to the rule." That might be true, but Sonntag found more than 460 violations of executive session rules between 2004 and 2007.
McKenna said, "The advice given by attorneys will be protected. The standard (for bringing a challenge) is fairly high for the challenger and the judge."
Because both city- and county-government associations put up such a stink before the committee, HB 3292 appeared to have died Tuesday when it failed to come up for a vote. However, the bill was resurrected Thursday night, thanks in part to the efforts of state Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger. He said in a statement after the committee advanced the bill that he supported "keeping government accountable to citizens ? This bill would ensure that business done behind closed doors is protected unless there is serious question about what was said."
There's another point to consider. Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there, just to document how properly they're performing their jobs and to remove any doubt to the contrary?
The only reason any public official could oppose this bill would be fear of doing something wrong, and if that happens, wouldn't it be best if a judge and then the public found out about it?
HB 3292 is brilliantly crafted. It provides as much protection for proper behavior as it provides scrutiny of improper behavior. Legislators should stop listening to the cowering whiners and pass the bill. The public has the right to know about violations of executive session rules. "Wouldn't capable public servants want the tape recorder there?"