News Analysis: The farce of open meetings

Having all government meetings open to the public doesn't make for better government

Email | Print By Ken Whitehouse

04-25-2008 7:08 AM —

Throughout this session of the Tennessee State Legislature, we have heard the constant drum beat of people saying the judicial selection commission should be subject to "open meetings." In addition, different groups have fought over whether the printing of gun permit holders should be legal.

In each case, a frenzy of commentary has erupted over how government is infringing on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and how we, the people, have to protect the "Sunshine Laws." Those are the rules that proscribe governmental bodies from meeting behind closed doors or closing off public records.

Frankly, a lot of this rhetoric is like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. In the end, it hurts many more people than it should.

Just like the rest of the media, I think the First Amendment is worth protecting. Big whoop, though – I'm on a crowded bus on that issue. And while we can talk about what should be made public at the federal level, we have the most control over what happens at the state level. In Tennessee, that is where things are getting a bit ridiculous.

Simply put: Forcing every instance of state and local government to be subject to open-meetings laws is counterproductive to effective government.

It is ironic that many people say they want government to be run like a business while also having every meeting open. At your company, should the guy from the mail room have to be in on every discussion about how the business is run?

We have all heard the scenario of how three school board members from, say, Bristol can't carpool to Nashville to see their elected officials because, as soon as one of them asks to turn down the car radio, open-meetings laws are broken. That isn't even an extreme case, but is likely that the poobah of the Tennessee Ethics Commission, Bruce Androphy, would see it that way.

Remember, Androphy is the guy we got from former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer a few years ago. He's the one who opined that if Microsoft hired a lobbyist in Tennessee, Bill Gates should have to come sit in on one of his ethics trainings workshops. If you haven't had the pleasure of attending such a session, let's just say it should be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Oh, and by the way, the Ethics Commission has ruled that it doesn't have to comply with every aspect of the state's sunshine laws.

Here's the point. There needs to be compromise. When every meeting in government is "open," you get chuckleheads who play to the peanut gallery. These are the elected officials on both sides of the aisle who aren't effective in any way, but throw out divisive comments and agendas in order keep their fringe elements happy.

In return, they end up pushing to the wings the real issues facing government while valuable time is wasted determining whether a homosexual agenda is being taught in public schools or if "Girls Gone Wild" should be allowed to air its commercials in Tennessee. (On second thought, maybe we should ask Spitzer about that last one.)

What is missing is a genuine discourse that elected officials should be allowed, even empowered, to have. Instead, today's environment means that, if you float an idea in government, you are crucified – and you can be sure it will come back to haunt you in your next campaign. And don't even think about changing your mind or actually learning something during a debate. Then you are just a flat-out waffling buffoon.

There are some problems better solved behind closed doors. Give people elected by the state's citizens a chance to have an exchange of ideas instead of having to play to the cameras with every breath.

Not every meeting needs to be behind a closed door. But it wouldn't kill this republic to shut the door every once in a while.