Open Meetings Law for you, but not me.
Republican Attorney General candidate, Stu Umholtz, had a great idea that the PJStar shared in an editorial this week.
It's such a simple idea it's brilliant. Tazewell County State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz would have the Illinois General Assembly follow its own law.Quite simply, the way the Democrats have handled the budget is an horrendous abuse of power that should have no place in "public service". Why doesn't Speaker Madigan, President Jones, Governor Blagojevich and everyone in the General Asembly live by the same laws they write for other elected officials? Could it be Illinois Democrats are more interested in their behind-closed-doors power over our tax dollars than they are in open, honest, public service?
Umholtz wants to prohibit state lawmakers from meeting in secret. Legislators routinely meet in private to discuss legislation and strategy when they caucus or meet outside the House or Senate chambers. No other governmental body, no city council or county board, can get away with that in Illinois.
That's because the General Assembly gave itself an exemption in the Open Meetings Law, so lawmakers aren't actually breaking the law when they meet behind closed doors. They're just evading the public they're supposed to be serving.
Now if Mr. Umholtz could just get enough of a campaign together, maybe this idea could put some pressure on the anti-democratic power mongers running Springfield to open their processes up some more.
10 comments:
Another great reform in Illinois would be to ban unified House and Senate campaign committees under the control of the respective leaders.
And ban transfers, loans and 'in-kind' contributions between campaign funds over nominal amounts.
And put some BIG teeth into violation enforcement.
You have to break the stranglehold the leaders have over individual members via campaign money.
Good post and on a topic that has bugged me for a number of years. Local governments like city councils etc have had to dot every I and cross every T in the open meetings act, worry about who they talk to at ballgames for fear of breaking the Act and yet the same people who write the law don't have to abide by it. Outrageous.
I agree.
I also think that state agency meetings above a certain level should be subject to the Open Meetings act.
State managers claim to go to an awful lot of meetings (whenever you call, they're in one) but one wonders if they are required to contribute anything or if they just socialize or sleep.
I would bet the latter in many of our grossly overstaffed state agencies.
This is a horrendous idea. Publishing the final budget for a week (or even 48 hours) is reasonable, but this extreme would result in even worse public policy. Tastes great, but less filling. Ask yourself this question -- do you think legislators are more or less likely to preen for the cameras and the easy soundbite in public vs. a private meeting? The problem with state politics for decades has been too much emphasis on short-term political gain at the expense of serious, long-term policy considerations. In over a decade of public service in the executive and legislative branches, it was the private meetings with both Republicans and Democrats that made the most progress on sound public policy.
One other point -- the Open Meetings Act requires public meetings of a quorum or more of the members. The only time a full quorum of the House or Senate meets in private is during the caucus of the majority party. So the practical effect of this would be to let the minority caucus meet privately without any new restrictions, and the majority caucus would just ask three members to step outside.
I'm a township official. Always thought myself to be "pro-open government," but one of the absolutely idiotic non-intended consequences of this law is that those of us on 5 member boards can't talk to another, even just a 1 on 1 conversation, even calling to verify information sent out before a meeting. Let these folk in Springfield try to operate under those conditions!
Once again Reddbyrd brings nothing but ignorance to the debate....at least he can be counted on to be lame.
I'm not sure, but it always seems that while the Dems are caucusing they have a few of the legislators with the least seniority wandering the hallways. I always thought this was to keep the number in the caucus meeting to below 60 in the House and 30 in the Senate. Probably skirting the law and its intentions but still not in violation of it.
Reddbyrd is right on target --- this time.
Lame comes from the guy who was MIA all session and then pops uup with an idea the day AFTER the GA adjourns.
Very Nice Timing.
This is a non issue. It makes for good stump speech material because it sounds like real reform but it has zero chance of happening.
It's intellectually dishonest to pretend only Democrats meet this way.
Post a Comment