The partisans in the Idaho Legislature aren’t basking in their recent court victory that validated the right of committees to close meetings for any reason.

They’re offering fixes, one from the Democrats, the other from the supermajority Republicans.

The Democrats are proposing the better one, as far as the public is concerned – a constitutional amendment that would prohibit committee hearings from being closed for any reason. “The Legislature’s business is the public’s business, and it should be performed in an open manner fully and always,” said Sen. Kate Kelly, D-Boise. “Not some of the time or even most of the time, but all of the time.”

The Republicans are working on the one that stands the best chance of being approved, a rule that would allow committee closures only for extraordinary reasons, such as litigation, employee discipline or security matters. Their proposal is similar to the Open Meeting Law governing cities and counties throughout the state, which allows executive sessions for a handful of reasons, including pending litigation, personnel matters and property purchases. On the surface, the proposed Republican rule seems reasonable, resembling a limited closure recommendation developed last fall by the nonpartisan Common Interest organization.

However, unless there are stiff penalties for closing committee meetings without proper cause, the new rule’s exemptions can be bent easily by a Republican committee chairman in a supermajority Republican Legislature. Suspected violations of the Open Meeting Law crop up regularly in local governments in Idaho to remind everyone that elected officials enjoy secrecy. The Legislature should approve the Democrats’ plan, and let Idahoans decide the issue at the polls.

The Democratic proposal may create discomfort for legislative leaders on the rare occasion that truly sensitive matters come before them – for example, the Snake River litigation that resulted in a combined four closed committee meetings in 2003 and 2004. But lawmakers have dealt with other ticklish issues for decades without closing committee meetings. Importantly, the Democrats’ alternative removes the temptation from legislators in the future to expand the exemptions to the rule for allowing secret meetings, as has happened in the state of Washington.

In a recent commentary, Democrat Sens. Clint Stennett and Kelly cited another important reason for requiring complete openness: “Keeping deliberations secret makes it impossible for the public to know whether legislators are meeting the standards the public believes to be adequate. It asks the public really to put blind faith in its legislators.”

The Republicans deserve credit for not thumbing their nose at the Idaho Press Club – and by extension, the public – after the Idaho Supreme Court ruled 3-2 earlier this month in their favor on closed committee meetings. House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes and others could have decided that the split decision settled the matter and ignored strong public opinion to change the rules. Their proposal reflects a serious effort on behalf of the majority party to protect the interest of the public on delicate issues while being as open as possible.

It just doesn’t go far enough.