Senators defend decision to close some meetings

Idaho’s Republican lawmakers are adamant that they aren’t trying to keep information and contentious debate from public view.

Their mantra is that all government should be open. In the same breath, some legislators maintain that the Idaho Legislature needs the ability to – in very rare instances – close legislative committee meetings to the public and the media so they can discuss sensitive issues in private.

The move is causing a battle between legislative leadership and the media. Some lawmakers accuse Idaho reporters of using the power of the press to make a stink about nothing and striking fear in the general public.

“Many of my friends in the press believe that they should be able to attend and report on the front page of your local newspaper even the most delicate and sensitive matters of public safety – even if by doing so you tip to the terrorist your public weakness,” Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, said.

Davis was the main force behind a change Thursday in Senate rules to allow closed meetings for any reason, without having to state the need for closure or what will be discussed.

The House has had the same power for 40 years, and Davis argues it hasn’t been abused. He made a personal guarantee that he won’t allow the privilege to be abused in the Senate. Davis added that the media, as watchdogs, are an additional safeguard to ensure openness

Yet he warned North Idaho senators this week not to make comments to The Idaho Spokesman-Review because they could jeopardize the Legislature’s position in a lawsuit filed by the Idaho Press Club. Davis instead offered answers to a Spokesman-Review questionnaire. Later, most of the North Idaho senators also responded.

Davis said that during his seven-year tenure, he’s attended around 500 committee meetings and none of them has been closed to the public. He’s also quick to point out that of the thousands of Senate and House committee meetings since 1990, only seven were closed.

Media sue Legislature

It’s these closures that prompted the Idaho Press Club, which represents more than 200 radio, television and newspaper reporters, to file a lawsuit against the Idaho Legislature.

The club believes closed meetings are an assault on Idahoans’ constitutional right to open government.

Press club attorney Deb Kristensen said it’s ironic that the only place where members of the public can add to debate is the place where they aren’t allowed. Committee meetings are where the public can give testimony on proposed legislation. The Senate has 10 standing committees, and the House has 14.

Kristensen maintains that the Idaho Constitution guarantees open meetings. The press club quotes the state founders as wanting the “electric light of publicity” to “be turned upon everything the Legislature has to do in our halls.”

“The Idaho Constitution is the only real protection Idaho citizens have to prevent abuse by their government,” Kristensen said.

The lawsuit refers to seven instances in the previous 18 months when House and Senate committees barred the media and general public from official meetings. Two of those involved briefings on water-rights negotiations that had been subjected to a gag order by a district court.

Twice 4th District Court Judge Kathryn Sticklen has ruled that legislative committees don’t do the business of the Legislature, so the constitution does not require them to keep their meetings open to the public.

The press club is appealing the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court.

One of the closed meetings in April 2003 was regarding field burning. In hindsight, Davis said that meeting probably shouldn’t have been shut off to public scrutiny because there was no gag order by a court.

The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union maintains that closing legislative meetings affects every Idaho resident in addition to the press and lobbyists.

“In a democracy, it’s vital for people to understand what their government is doing and not doing,” Executive Director Jack Van Valkenburgh said. “The people are the watchdog, and how can the people watch something they can’t see?”

Some lawmakers who support the closed meetings have said there’s no danger or potential for abuse because no votes or decisions would be made in secret.

“Quite frankly, we are not talking about making policy or voting on policy in closed sessions,” said Sen. Mike Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake. “There’s no power to vote in a closed session. If people are led to believe closed sessions lend itself to secrecy in government or making policy, that’s absolutely not true.”

Before the votes

Boise State University public policy professor Jim Weatherby said lawmaking isn’t just about votes. It’s more about the discussion, the reasoning behind the vote, he said.

“They are going into closed meetings and are deliberating toward a decision,” Weatherby said. “The public wants to know what are the determining arguments, what were the considerations that led to that decision.”

Former Republican Rep. Gary Ingram, who served in the House from 1972 to 1980 and wrote the original Idaho Open Meeting Law, keeps tabs on the controversy from his Coeur d’Alene home. He’s hundreds of miles from the Capitol and 25 years removed from his tenure in the Legislature, but Ingram hasn’t lost his passion about the people’s right to know.

Ingram puts most of the blame for the current controversy on Davis. He said lawmakers are fearful of doing business in the open because they lack confidence – they’re afraid a reporter will print their words in the local newspaper.

Ingram balks at the suggestion that the media are fighting a lonely war, which is what House Speaker Bruce Newcomb indicated this week when he said only two reporters who cover the Legislature care about the Senate rule change. Newcomb added that he makes sure House committee chairmen don’t close meetings without leadership’s permission. Closed meetings are only allowed for “educational purposes” or a “place to vent,” Newcomb said.

Ingram said the public rarely gets involved until they are harmed. That’s what the press club is trying to prevent, he said.

“The general public already has an attitude toward government that you have to watch them. Lawmakers aren’t held in high regard. Trying to promote secrecy just adds fuel to the fire,” Ingram said.

The way to prevent abuse or corruption, he said, is already in the state constitution.

“Thomas Jefferson said it best,” Ingram said. ” ‘In matters of power, let no man speak of trust but bind him down by the chains of the Constitution.’ “

North Idahoans respond

The Spokesman-Review conducted an e-mail poll this week asking North Idaho residents what they think about the Legislature’s move to close meetings to the public. Of the 39 responses, only two people said it was appropriate to have closed meetings. Yet some people said it was acceptable to close committee meetings for extraordinary instances, such as discussion of personnel issues, national safety or land negotiations.

The Legislature already had the ability to close committee meetings for executive session, the reasons for which were outlined in law. It’s the same open meeting statute that applies to every other level of government, including city councils and county commissions.

“Crooks and mushrooms work best in the dark,” Bob Riddle, of Hayden Lake, wrote in reply to the e-mail questionnaire. “Honest people work better in the daylight.”

Jay Dudley, of Sagle, said there are times when the doors need to be closed to discuss sensitive matters.

“We elect these people to a job so let them do it,” he wrote. “I feel that there are enough people in the room to make sure everything is above board. Let the elected officials do their job. If they don’t, elect a new one who will.”

Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said the media have been “flagrantly misleading the public about the nature of these meetings.”

“I will make votes, debate and deliberate in public, and I will obey a judge when I’m told that in order to advocate for the interests of my constituents I must participate in those discussions behind closed doors,” she said.

Yet Senate Democrats say there is no good reason to ever close a legislative meeting. In matters of litigation or public safety, they say, there are ways to get the information to lawmakers without closing public access.

“It’s a travesty,” said Senate Assistant Minority Leader Mike Burkett, D-Boise. “This sets the example that government can be closed when in fact it shouldn’t be. It’s the people’s business, and they have a right to know what’s going on.”

The Senate Democrats protested the change Thursday and vowed to walk out of any future closed meetings, which some have done in the past.

“Democracy is a messy business, and those in power would rather avoid the mess even if they believe in democracy,” Van Valkenburgh said. “The mess is dissent and disagreement and argument. But that’s vital to a democracy, and it’s vital that the people who elect legislators know the initial thoughts and comments of the Legislature as well as their final vote.”