An argument for more openness in government. Worth contemplating.
Craig Brooks
Craig Brooks
----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: "<email obscured>" <<email obscured>>
>To: <email obscured>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:39 PM
>Subject: Opening the Doors to Government
>
>
>To the Point, copyright 1999 by Apple Pie Alliance and Senator John Marty
>
>Opening the Doors to Government
>by Senator John Marty
>January31, 2012
>Government "of the people" is not very evident when the public is locked out
of the political process or when the laws do not disclose information that
voters need to understand conflicts of interest.
>
>Unfortunately, Minnesota is not a leader in terms of transparent and
accessible government. The non-partisan Center for Public Integrity gave
Minnesota an "F" in its most recent report card on financial disclosure. As
for open meetings, remember the "cone of silence," the humorous term MN House
Speaker Kurt Zellers gave to last summer's closed door budget negotiations
between legislators and the governor?
>
>This lack of openness is so routine that the public, news reporters, and most
legislators accept it as a given, even if they believe it's wrong. Since the
budget that resulted from negotiations conducted under the "cone of silence"
was a such a disaster, it's clear that the lack of openness doesn't produce
better results.
>
>Throughout much of Minnesota history, politics at the state capitol happened
behind closed doors. Lawmakers discussed and amended legislation in committee
meetings that included only legislators, staff, and often a few lobbyists.
Much of the legislative process was conducted outside of public view.
>
>Then, in the early 1970s, things changed. The DFL party campaigned on the
idea of opening the doors to government. Candidates promised to "let the sun
shine in" on meetings at the capitol. DFLers won control of the legislature,
and to their credit, they kept their promise. New sunshine rules were adopted.
For the first time, the public was allowed in during every step of the
lawmaking process. And Minnesota passed some of the best campaign finance
reforms and public disclosure laws in the nation.
>
>People across the country began to realize that their government ought to be
open to them. Other states followed Minnesota's lead, passing open meeting
laws and ethics reforms, usually after a political scandal forced politicians
to act.
>
>Minnesota is no longer a leader, not just because other states have gone
further, but also because our openness has been slipping away. Routine
committee meetings are still open to the public, but many of the most important
policy and budget decisions are now made behind closed doors, in conference
committee negotiations and in budget talks between the governor and legislative
leaders.
>
>Loopholes in Minnesota's disclosure laws became apparent long ago, but there
is little public awareness, and consequently, little pressure to close the
loopholes. Recent news reports about a senator who received $70,000 from the
Republican party for consulting, but did not disclose it on his financial
disclosure forms, show a gaping loophole in the law.
>
>If I was on the Minnesota Vikings payroll, secretly accepting huge consulting
fees from them, the public would have no way of knowing that such a conflict of
interest existed. That's true on any issue, with any lobby, and any public
official.
>
>Thanks to a significant reform of the 1990s, public officials are prohibited
from acceptinggifts from lobbyists or interest groups, but they could still be
collecting tens of thousands of dollars from those interests as "consultants"
or "independent contractors" - and the public would never know!
>
>I have been introducing legislation for many years (most recently Senate File
3020 in 2010), to close this loophole, yet without public awareness of it,
there is little political motivation to address it.
>
>We could open up those end-of-session budget negotiations, too. I have worked
with some colleagues to do so (Senate File 1330) but that legislation continues
to languish. Legislators who defend the status quo argue that politicians can
be more "frank" in closed-door caucus meetings and legislative negotiations.
But that response should raise red flags. It suggests that it's OK for public
officials to say one thing in public and a different thing when important
decisions are made behind closed doors.
>
>If Minnesotans deserve openness when routine legislation is debated, it is
even more important when the biggest decisions are made.
>
>Public opinion polls show strong support for more transparency in government.
But unless voters speak out - at their precinct caucuses, by contacting their
legislators and by organizing for change - things will get worse, not better.
It's time to make Minnesota, once again, a leader in government reform.
>
>________________________________
>
>To the Point! is published by the Apple Pie Alliance. www.apple-pie.org. If
you know others who would enjoy To the Point!, please forward this.
>Free Subscription Address Change Unsubscribe
>Permission to quote or reprint is granted if author is credited.
>Copyright Apple Pie Alliance
>
>
>From: "<email obscured>" <<email obscured>>
>To: <email obscured>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:39 PM
>Subject: Opening the Doors to Government
>
>
>To the Point, copyright 1999 by Apple Pie Alliance and Senator John Marty
>
>Opening the Doors to Government
>by Senator John Marty
>January31, 2012
>Government "of the people" is not very evident when the public is locked out
of the political process or when the laws do not disclose information that
voters need to understand conflicts of interest.
>
>Unfortunately, Minnesota is not a leader in terms of transparent and
accessible government. The non-partisan Center for Public Integrity gave
Minnesota an "F" in its most recent report card on financial disclosure. As
for open meetings, remember the "cone of silence," the humorous term MN House
Speaker Kurt Zellers gave to last summer's closed door budget negotiations
between legislators and the governor?
>
>This lack of openness is so routine that the public, news reporters, and most
legislators accept it as a given, even if they believe it's wrong. Since the
budget that resulted from negotiations conducted under the "cone of silence"
was a such a disaster, it's clear that the lack of openness doesn't produce
better results.
>
>Throughout much of Minnesota history, politics at the state capitol happened
behind closed doors. Lawmakers discussed and amended legislation in committee
meetings that included only legislators, staff, and often a few lobbyists.
Much of the legislative process was conducted outside of public view.
>
>Then, in the early 1970s, things changed. The DFL party campaigned on the
idea of opening the doors to government. Candidates promised to "let the sun
shine in" on meetings at the capitol. DFLers won control of the legislature,
and to their credit, they kept their promise. New sunshine rules were adopted.
For the first time, the public was allowed in during every step of the
lawmaking process. And Minnesota passed some of the best campaign finance
reforms and public disclosure laws in the nation.
>
>People across the country began to realize that their government ought to be
open to them. Other states followed Minnesota's lead, passing open meeting
laws and ethics reforms, usually after a political scandal forced politicians
to act.
>
>Minnesota is no longer a leader, not just because other states have gone
further, but also because our openness has been slipping away. Routine
committee meetings are still open to the public, but many of the most important
policy and budget decisions are now made behind closed doors, in conference
committee negotiations and in budget talks between the governor and legislative
leaders.
>
>Loopholes in Minnesota's disclosure laws became apparent long ago, but there
is little public awareness, and consequently, little pressure to close the
loopholes. Recent news reports about a senator who received $70,000 from the
Republican party for consulting, but did not disclose it on his financial
disclosure forms, show a gaping loophole in the law.
>
>If I was on the Minnesota Vikings payroll, secretly accepting huge consulting
fees from them, the public would have no way of knowing that such a conflict of
interest existed. That's true on any issue, with any lobby, and any public
official.
>
>Thanks to a significant reform of the 1990s, public officials are prohibited
from acceptinggifts from lobbyists or interest groups, but they could still be
collecting tens of thousands of dollars from those interests as "consultants"
or "independent contractors" - and the public would never know!
>
>I have been introducing legislation for many years (most recently Senate File
3020 in 2010), to close this loophole, yet without public awareness of it,
there is little political motivation to address it.
>
>We could open up those end-of-session budget negotiations, too. I have worked
with some colleagues to do so (Senate File 1330) but that legislation continues
to languish. Legislators who defend the status quo argue that politicians can
be more "frank" in closed-door caucus meetings and legislative negotiations.
But that response should raise red flags. It suggests that it's OK for public
officials to say one thing in public and a different thing when important
decisions are made behind closed doors.
>
>If Minnesotans deserve openness when routine legislation is debated, it is
even more important when the biggest decisions are made.
>
>Public opinion polls show strong support for more transparency in government.
But unless voters speak out - at their precinct caucuses, by contacting their
legislators and by organizing for change - things will get worse, not better.
It's time to make Minnesota, once again, a leader in government reform.
>
>________________________________
>
>To the Point! is published by the Apple Pie Alliance. www.apple-pie.org. If
you know others who would enjoy To the Point!, please forward this.
>Free Subscription Address Change Unsubscribe
>Permission to quote or reprint is granted if author is credited.
>Copyright Apple Pie Alliance
>
>