The Louisiana Press Association is crying foul over a bill working its way through the Legislature that many see as an erosion of the state’s sunshine laws. The Senate & Government Affairs Committee heard Senate Bill 583 this week, but deferred it until next week. SB 583, by Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, would allow committees of four persons or less — specially focused panels appointed by public bodies like city councils and often comprising members of those councils — to hold “informal” meetings in private to discuss public matters, and to schedule such meetings without public notice. Peterson crafted the bill at the request of the New Orleans City Council, which uses four-person committees and which evidently perceives Louisiana’s public meetings law as cumbersome.
The LPA is warning that if passed SB 583 would allow such committees to “just run rough shod over the open meetings law.”
“Mark our words,” the LPA goes on to warn, “if this bill passes four-person or less committees will be formed at every governmental level and public business will all be conducted in private under the guise of information/discussion.”
The bill was amended this week to include the language allow such committees to comprise four members or fewer, although those amendments are not reflected in the version of the bill posted on the Legislature’s Web site.
Linda Lightfoot, the LPA’s freedom of information consultant, wrote the following editorial regarding the matter:
A perceived problem with the way in which the New Orleans City Council committees would like to operate has prompted a bill that would apply to all public bodies in the state and create a serious loophole in the public meetings law.
Under Senate bill 583 by Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans, a public body with four or fewer members (most likely a committee or subcommittee) could meet privately, without giving public notice, provided the members don’t make a decision or take a vote.
The seven-member New Orleans City Council operates with four-member committees. They would like to chat among themselves without having to include the public. They say they are afraid that such conversations may violate the current law. Whether casual talks among members would violate the current law is open to question. But the Peterson bill would go way beyond casual chats and it could lead to the creation of four member committees all over the state to take advantage of the loophole.
If her bill were to become law, a committee with four or fewer members that now must open its meetings to the public, could meet privately and thrash out a controversial item that affects their constituents. Or, a committee could meet and receive proposals from third parties — proposals that could affect constituents’ property rights, business interests, their childrens’ education or an unlimited number of other interests. Whether a vote is taken is not the point. The people would miss the information they need to understand and judge the decisions made by their public officials.
When the controversial item, discussed privately in committee, would come before the full council or school board or other public entity, the public would be deprived of an opportunity to adequately assess the reasons for it or to check out any third parties who stand to benefit from it. When a public body is going to act, people interested in or affected by a proposal, should have adequate time to frame their support or their objections.
Perhaps the most cogent argument against Peterson’s bill is found in the public meetings law itself: “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.”
To post a comment, please log into your IND account. If you do not have an account, click the "register" button to create one. Facebook comments can be used as an alternative to creating an account at theIND.com.
DEC 20 The Robertson family is playing hardball in their dispute with A&E, the network that airs the wildly profitable "reality" show about their family, Duck Dynasty. Patriarch Phil Robertson was suspended by the network after GQ printed an interview with him that contained his (unedited) comments about gay and black folks. Here's a link to their statement, in which they say they can't imagine the show without papa and announcing that they are in negotiations with A&E about the future of the show.
DEC 20 Blogger Robert Mann (also a journalism prof at LSU and thus an authority on the First Amendment) says something in this post of which a lot of Fox News anchors and internet trolls should take heed: the Constitution says you have freedom of speech. It does not say you can't face consequences for what you say. He also takes a look at what our governor has to say -- and ole Bobby had to drag Miley Cyrus into it.
DEC 20 Blogger Tom Aswell says Governor Bobby Jindal has now had more to say about the comments a "reality" star made about gay and black people than he has had to say about the problems in his own voucher program or the sinkhole in Bayou Corne. In fact, Tom points out, Bobby's all over the Phil Robertson "issue" like "a duck on a June bug."
DEC 20 Here's an interesting post from blogger Katie East in DIG Magazine about celebrity passings. She understands why so many would be sad because of Mandela's passing -- he was an international figure, a political figure, an activist. But there is similar wailing following the passing of people who may not have had the same impact, she says -- like the guy who starred in the Fast and Furious movies. She wants to know: why is that?
DEC 20 Columnist James Gill writes about Louisiana's embattled voucher program in this post. Just because a child attends a private school does not mean he's going to get a good education, Gill writes. Gov. Jindal likes to say the program helps kids get a great education, but whether it does that is open to "considerable doubt," Gill writes.
DEC 20 Gambit's Clancy DuBos writes about the NOLA mayor's race in this post. For a while, it was assumed that it would be a quiet one, given the amount of money Mitch has in the bank. But at the last minute, a (possibly) formidable candidate threw his hat in the ring. The question is, Clancy says, why?
DEC 20 In Louisiana's education system, the state takes over a school that is designated as "failing." The assumption is, that's a good thing and will produce improvement. But is that the case? Blogger Mike Deshotels takes a look at how takeovers perform in one area of testing, the ACT.
Read the Flipping Paper!
Click Here for the Entire Print Version of IND Monthly