Open Meetings Laws Under Scrutiny in Many States
Matej Kastelic / Shutterstock.com
As Alabama looks to close a quorum loophole, other open meetings changes are considered in states like Michigan and Illinois.
State and local governments are constantly making their meetings more transparent, like Alabama is looking to do by closing a loophole in its Open Meetings Act.
A bill, currently on Gov. Robert Bentley’s desk, would prohibit city councils, county commissions, boards, committees and other public bodies from holding private meetings as long as they lack a quorum.
The 2005 law’s intent was altered in the span of two years by three state Supreme Court rulings, including one permitting sub-quorums of two or more members that have, in some cases, deliberated entirely in secret before public votes.
“I think it reverses what I consider some bad decisions by the Supreme Court, and I'm glad to see that this is a step forward in transparency of state government and local government,” bill sponsor Sen. Cam Ward told The Tuscaloosa News after the 91-4 House vote. “Every board and commission, every body of government that's answerable with taxpayer dollars should be required to provide more transparency.”
Certain meetings pertaining to economic incentives for companies and personnel decisions at universities created by Alabama’s 1901 constitution remain exempt.
Late last month, members of the Michigan House of Representatives approved a bill that would change the state’s open meetings law so local elected officials have to be physically present for public votes. Current law allows them to phone or video conference in to open meetings.
Bill sponsor Rep. Amanda Price told the Associated Press citizens should be able to address their officials directly during votes. The lone exception would be emergency votes.
Another open meetings bill is on a governor’s desk in Illinois—that one extending the window of time people have to report violations of the state’s act to its attorney general. The bill, not retroactive, was unanimously passed by both houses of Illinois’ legislature.
Instead of people having 60 days from the time of the meeting to report violations, they now have 60 days from the time of discovering an alleged violation. The proposed change comes after the Oakwood Hills Village Board held a possibly illegal, private meeting to discuss a since-abandoned $450 million power plant project that residents learned about a year later.
Iowa’s open meetings law may be in need of an update after the Camanche City Council turned away the overflow crowd to a meeting citing fire code regulations. The state Public Information Board dismissed a complaint against the council because nothing in Iowa’s open meetings law addresses attendance or fire codes.
Some fear the board’s decision will inspire other state governmental bodies to shrink the size of their meeting spaces to limit resident input and speed up proceedings.
The Hawk Eye’s editorial board weighed in:
Many other states have laws that say government meetings are to be accessible to anyone who wants to attend. Iowa lawmakers need to amend the state's open meetings law to make that clear to those elected to do work on our behalf. Fire codes aren't in charge. It's everybody's government, not just the 35 people who got in line first to get in the room.
NEXT STORY: New Visualization Tool Will Augment Existing Open Data Portal in Philadelphia