Four months from today, American voters will choose their next president, the national leader generally regarded as the most powerful political figure in the world.

Whichever candidate they pick, it will mark an improvement on the preceding eight years in terms of a commitment to openness. As one example, both Barack Obama and John McCain support a federal shield law, a measure the Bush administration has strongly opposed.

Under such a measure, reporters could not be forced to name confidential sources except under narrowly defined and compelling circumstances. The ability of a free press to expose government misconduct is one of several tools Americans depend upon for the information that lets them do their duty as citizens.

A free and independent press. Open records. Open meetings. Public disclosure of campaign contributions. Protection for whistle-blowers. In the house of self-governance, openness is a load-bearing wall.

So today, 232 years after our forefathers declared our independence from all authorities except ourselves, how are we doing at openness?

Gains come slowly, and frustrations are many. Even though a McCain or Obama presidency may be friendlier to interests of openness than the Bush administration – which has been notoriously hostile – the next White House will have its share of conflicts over how much of the public’s business the public is allowed to witness. Count on it.

Encouragement

On the plus side, Congress is inching closer to sending the aforementioned federal shield law to the White House. The House has passed the measure, and the Senate now needs to act favorably.

Closer to home, the Washington Legislature has established a Sunshine Committee to review an explosion in the exemptions that have been created to the open meetings requirements in state law. The real measure of success will be whether the process results in a substantial reduction in the law’s tolerance of secrecy.

Washington lawmakers also approved a free, searchable Web site where citizens can get details about state contracts and expenditures. Nine states created such resources in the past year, according to State Legislatures magazine.

On the down side

Despite improvements here and there, those who hold public positions have a stake in the control of information. Efforts to circumvent open-government laws are common. A report from the Washington state Auditor’s Office identified some 400 violations of the open meetings law, ranging from inadequate notice to inappropriate use of executive sessions.

In Idaho last Dec. 6, the Board of Education improperly used an executive session to discuss the possibility of canceling the Idaho Standard Achievement Test for ninth-graders. But the state Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors would have to demonstrate the board “knowingly” violated the state’s open meeting law before breaking it. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden has called on lawmakers to remove the word “knowingly” from the statute. As his spokesman, Bob Cooper, puts it, “You have to prove knowingness. It’s an almost impossible burden for a prosecutor to prove.”

To-do list

Preserving the heritage of democratic values requires all citizens, including public officials, to demand open government in the broadest sense. And if the lawmakers of Idaho and Washington are looking for good starting points, here are a couple of top-priority candidates.

In Idaho, a whistle-blower with 26 years experience working for the state Tax Commission has maintained that the commission regularly gives multistate corporations large tax breaks in disputed cases. The corporation protests its assessment, and the commission negotiates a compromise, not in a public setting but in a “confidential settlement.” The commission insists nothing is amiss, but it’s impossible for the public to know because the agreements are reached in secret.

Whistle-blower Stan Howland says the use of confidential settlements has grown over the past 17 years to the point that they accounted for nearly all multistate corporate protests in the past year.

The Idaho Legislature is looking into Howland’s complaints, but regardless of whether the settlements he cites are fair, there is no justification for insulating them from the public’s ability to make its own judgment.

Roll the tape

In Washington, one of the main goals for the 2009 legislative session for open-government advocates was a measure requiring public entities to make audio recordings of their executive sessions. Executive sessions, from which the public is excluded, are allowed under the law for limited purposes such as personnel matters, real estate purchases and plotting litigation strategy.

But because they’re held in secret, there’s seldom a way to determine if the conversations have strayed to other matters. If a plausible challenge were raised, under the proposed law, a judge could review the recording and decide if a violation had occurred. Only the portions of a meeting that were improperly closed would be subject to release.

The measure had strong bipartisan support from lawmakers (Democratic and Republican leaders in the House) and key state officials (the Democratic auditor and the Republican attorney general) but local governments – the bodies most likely to be affected – mounted a formidable lobbying effort to kill it.

Any time government can determine for itself whether it is operating as openly as the law requires, the people lose a measure of authority over their own representatives. Washington lawmakers should approve the measure next year.

No country surpasses the United States when it comes to holding elections that are fair, open, valid and faithful to the principles of democratic rule. No other nation transfers the reins of authority with greater commitment to continuity, stability and legitimacy.

As we celebrate independence, we should snap a grateful salute to the instruments of openness that make it possible.