Your Call May Be Monitored
Rep. Doug Aagard had the thankless task this summer of chairing a task force on the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). A copy of his bill to enact the task force's recommendations can be found here.
Various interests, but especially the media, have concerns over aspects of the bill. I have been asked to help moderate the discussion. Though I think most points will be readily resolved, the biggest sticking point concerns communications from citizens to their representatives (line 475-476).
Two (exaggerated) examples can paint the dispute. One, there should be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "Make sure X passes, and a shiny, new Mercedes will be all yours." Two, there should not be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "My kids go to school with Rep. X's kids. Though I like him, I sure think he's crazy, if he believes . . .."
Many communications I receive fall into the latter category of people candidly giving me their input, believing it is just between them and me. I worry that disclosure of those communications would do more harm than good, by discouraging some people from providing blunt input. My position is that concern 2 outweighs concern 1. Part of this is that I don't think concern 1 is happening. The public, though, if the newspapers are to be believed, might disagree on how these concerns should be weighted.
Various interests, but especially the media, have concerns over aspects of the bill. I have been asked to help moderate the discussion. Though I think most points will be readily resolved, the biggest sticking point concerns communications from citizens to their representatives (line 475-476).
Two (exaggerated) examples can paint the dispute. One, there should be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "Make sure X passes, and a shiny, new Mercedes will be all yours." Two, there should not be disclosure of an e-mail that says, "My kids go to school with Rep. X's kids. Though I like him, I sure think he's crazy, if he believes . . .."
Many communications I receive fall into the latter category of people candidly giving me their input, believing it is just between them and me. I worry that disclosure of those communications would do more harm than good, by discouraging some people from providing blunt input. My position is that concern 2 outweighs concern 1. Part of this is that I don't think concern 1 is happening. The public, though, if the newspapers are to be believed, might disagree on how these concerns should be weighted.
posted by steve u. at 1/23/2006
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Let's all hope and pray option 1 isn't happening. But if it were, how would we ever know? It's the media's job to keep an eye on you guys. If you ban public records like these, Joe Schmo could offer you a Mercedes for a bill to pass and nobody would ever know. Let the media do their job as your watchdog.
I appalud your concerns about the need to get candid and accurate input. It the same time, I appreciate you recognition of the need for maximum transparency in the making as well and the administeration public policy. I also uphold the principle that every citizen, who would influence public policy, must demonstrate the courage and personal integrity to be publically accountable for their efforts to influence public policy, which always has a compulsory impact on others. Since here does not appear to be any perfect solution, I conclude that transparency must come before the need for candor.
I disagree with the assumption put forward by the anonymous commentor (and propogated by the media) that "it's the media's job to be a government watchdog."
It's the public's job to be aware of our government; the media is simply a subset of that.
yes but will the public actually go to legislative meetings to keep an eye on the legislature? Will they go to city council and planning commission meetings? No, that's why the media goes to tell the public what is going on.
<< Home