“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
Patrick Henry, 1788
Legislators in Maine, as reported in this newspaper on Tuesday, discussed the state budget in closed sessions with only a few committee members in attendance.
In Biddeford, the City Council used executive sessions ”“ discussions at which the public isn’t allowed ”“ to contract with City Manager John Bubier to work 30 hours on economic development to the tune of $75,000 a year when he steps down from his current position. They also use such sessions to consider personnel suspensions, such as suspending its police chiefs in light of alleged sexual abuse of minors by former officers.
While these issues involve separate realms of government, state versus local, they have something in common: the lack of transparency, the act of doing the people’s business behind closed doors.
Sometimes, practicing government away from the prying eye of the public may be justified.
Items like labor contracts, personnel issues and real estate deals are often conducted privately so as not to harm a person’s reputation, or hurt the government’s negotiating strategy.
But in many cases, it seems governments perform public business outside of the public purview simply because it’s easier than having to deal with opposition from their citizens.
In an article published Tuesday, entitled “Legislators conducting public business in private despite state’s open meeting law,” John Christie, an editor and reporter with the investigative news organization Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, found that a meeting last month on the state budget by the Legislature’s Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, which was supposed to be conducted in public, wasn’t. Instead it was held by a committee subgroup in back rooms that were locked to all except legislators and staff.
In answer to Christie’s questioning the legality of the meeting, in light of the state’s Freedom of Access Act, he was told by the House chair of the committee, Rep. Peggy Rotundo, D-Lewiston, that the reason that the small group met in private is because “sometimes it’s difficult to get people to talk about the process publicly.”
Experts on the FOAA act say that reason isn’t good enough.
Instances of the lack of government transparency can also be found at the local level, such as when the Biddeford City Council decided in executive session to give Bubier a plum position when he finishes his current one. When the news was broken, it was announced as a done deal.
Or when the council discussed in closed chambers what to do about Biddeford police chiefs in answer to public outcries to suspend them. The council declined to suspend the chiefs last week and they said little publicly about their reasoning.
Yes, it is often messy to do the public’s business in public. Citizens may debate and criticize the government majority’s way of thinking. They may even hurl expletives at elected officials, as has happened recently in Biddeford.
There is already enough mistrust of politicians and acts of government. Lack of transparency in government dealings erodes public confidence in our democratic institutions even more.
Whether it’s state budgets or the actions of local government, when doing the public’s business, elected officials should always err on the side of public participation, or at least public scrutiny.
To not do so is the antithesis of the democracy on which we Americans pride ourselves.
A proposed state budget was passed earlier this week. Any future negotiations on this or other state issues should be conducted publicly, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
In local government, even when executive sessions are warranted, officials should explain in public ”“ not just in secret with one another ”“ how they justify their decisions, in order to earn their constituents’ trust.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
