The three or more proposal weakens the law.

I also don't know what is happening to a series of proposed exceptions to the law, some of which would open the door to the worst kind of back-room deal-cutting.

The committee report, for instance, had proposed exempting land purchases or leases by public units from the Open Meetings Law.

It's not hard to think of ways that private deals could be made on leases or land sales which might not be in the public interest.

Would Intra-Commission Email constitute a public record?

It's especially disheartening to see that Richard Hollow, the attorney who represented the News Sentinel in the sunshine suit and who is one of the subcommittee members, endorsed this weakening of the law.

He argued in court (and Chancellor Fansler agreed in his ruling) that a secret deliberation between even two Commissioners thwarts the public business. In his ruling, Fansler discussed two (hypothetical) Commissioners who head two (hypothetical) factions meeting in secret, and by virtue of their leadership roles thereby achieve a majority when the full Commission votes.

For some reason, even Hollow has changed his mind.

About two weeks ago, I emailed my state senator (Woodson) and representative (Strader), asking for their positions on this proposed weakening of the law (back when they were considering a four-person cutoff). I haven't heard a word from either one of them.

~Russ

Just because the committee has recommended these changes, it doesn't mean that it is law. It still has to be voted on in the House and the Senate. Contact your legislators and let them know you want them to oppose changes to weaken the law.

"...government just works better..."

(link...)

It appears the panel was waterboarding the Open Meetings law into submission. With the current contorted recommendations, the law will be too weak to stand for much of anything.

(link...)