Real transparency about open meetings, freedom of info act

     A reader contacted me to ask if I would report open meetings rules infractions by the current board of commissioners. I said it's something I would leave to the editors of the paper, but then, I got to thinking: This "law" about open meetings is no guarantee of transparency in government. In fact, it is often abused -- not as much by the electeds in office as by their opponents.
          And often, the claims of secrecy are misguided. Not reported or under-reported is not the same as a secret meeting; just because the public is unaware of some action does not mean someone was trying to hide anything. I often marveled at the stories that inexperienced or overworked reporters did not report until someone howled that the issue was a done deal, being railroaded through without sufficient discussion or debate. Other stories appeared in print, but citizens obviously never saw them.
     Savvy players in politics, locally and at state and national levels, know exactly how to get people to pay attention. They will pick up on something that can be spun as a "done deal," and file official complaints of non-compliance with the ideal of open and transparent government.
     Even if the press did not report the initial comments or actions on the issue, it will most certainly report on the controversy that arises out of a complaint of secrecy.
     Despite open discussion in open session, the decision to begin a study on local policing got little coverage until then State Senator Larry Haines sent out a letter accusing the commissioners of abuse of power.
    Ironically, what Haines was opposed to was increased funding of the sheriff's department, which he feared would lead to the end of the county's Resident Trooper agreement with the state police. By the time the spinners and manipulators got finished with their campaigns, the sheriff had succeeded in lining up the support of the senator and the county delegation, along with sheriffs' associations from across the country, to give the sheriff just what he wanted -- control of local policing.
    Then there was the proposal that led to five commissioners by district. It was originated by the delegation, but the final outcome was a surprise to many voters, who never did realize that they would be giving up the right to vote for -- or against -- the entire board, and would be limited to voting for just one representative on the county board. That outcome was the result of misinformation fed by a "Vote for Five" strategy by opponents to the board in power at the time. The irony, again, was that the commissioners in office were blamed by many for the confusion, when earlier we were chastised for pointing out the manipulations going on.
    The formation and early public meetings of grass roots committees on a new master plan were all but ignored for months, but when opposition arose, one of the first allegations was that the county was rushing the plan through without public input. A sure way to ignite opposition to any land use or zoning plan is to tell people their property rights are in jeopardy.
   Any given meeting day, a board of commissioners or a town council may have up to a dozen agenda items that will require action, and up to six hours of discussion to be condensed into one or two news stories over the next few days. It's easy to see how a story might fall between the cracks, and something considered minor by one citizen might look like a cover-up to another.
    The open meetings law has strict and unreasonable standards for compliance; if three members of the commissioners take the same elevator down two floors to a hearing room, they are in violation. If they share a car to an off-site meeting, they are out of compliance.
     To add to the the futility, the law is virtually unenforceable, and even when enforced, the consequences are little more than a slap on the wrist.
     Real transparency is an ideal, but that ideal is corrupted by the vindictiveness of political enemies, the inattention of the public and the limitations of an overwhelmed news media. If the open meeting is on file, and available on the county web site, the rule of  law has been met, even if the intent has not.
     If the politicians want to plot in a meeting before the meeting, or after the official meeting, it's hard to catch them at it. As a reporter and editor, I was more concerned about having the stories right that we could cover; as a commissioner, I was committed to the best efforts to comply with the intent of the law and let people know what we were doing -- even when it was sometimes used against us.
     Finally, there is the Freedom of Information act, which is often used by hostile citizens to obtain access to files and information. Opponents to the incumbents like to announce that they have obtained information through the Freedom of Information act, as if to imply that the holders of the info were trying to keep secrets.
    The fact is that the information sought may legitimately be protected because it is work product between the electeds and staff, or legal representation, and can be redacted. I've seen cases where someone out for the head of a commissioner or department head was given everything we had, and the recipient still could not figure out what it all meant, so it was up to the staff to explain it.
     If you really want to know what's going on, hope that your electeds and staff are open and honest. If they're not, neither the open meetings law nor the freedom of information act are going to help you much.