{"id":1276,"date":"2007-02-16T16:31:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-16T22:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/02\/theres-no-good-argument-against-open-meetings\/"},"modified":"2007-02-16T16:31:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-16T22:31:00","slug":"theres-no-good-argument-against-open-meetings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/02\/theres-no-good-argument-against-open-meetings\/","title":{"rendered":"There’s no good argument against open meetings"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>During Thursday\u2019s Senate debate on whether to open legislative conference committee meetings to the public, Sen. John Grubesic<\/a>, D-Santa Fe, made mention of the 2002 convictions of five former members of the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Apparently, Grubesic worked at the attorney general\u2019s office when it prosecuted the case. He said there were no positive results of the prosecutions, and that proves that the New Mexico Open Meetings Act doesn\u2019t really do much to promote open government. That was one of many arguments he made against opening conference committees.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But Grubesic\u2019s comments were either disingenuous, or he doesn\u2019t know as much as he led lawmakers to believe about the LCPS situation. Let me tell you about it.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

At the beginning of 2001, the unions, fed up with the tyranny of former Superintendent Jesse Gonzales, overthrew the school board by campaigning for the successful election of three new members, and pushed Gonzales to take another job.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It was then that, as a reporter at the Las Cruces Sun-News<\/a>, I received a tip about a secret bonus and other incentives the prior school board had given Gonzales to encourage him to stay in Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> for more than a decade. I started digging, and so did two of the new board members.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The result: The public learned for the first time about almost $1 million board members had spent on incentives to keep Gonzales. They had done it all in secret, egregiously violating open meetings law. The two members who had been involved that were still on the school board were recalled; all five members who had been involved were convicted.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It was the first criminal prosecution under the open meetings law since the mid-1970s. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It made no difference, Grubesic said Thursday.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That\u2019s crap. Not only is the school board in Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> now extremely careful about following the act, but the news shocked many and served as a warning.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

More importantly, it got the community involved in the schools. Some 400 people showed up at a meeting in 2001 at which the board admitted its mistakes and apologized. That was shortly before the community recalled the two remaining members.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Since then, the school board has been under extreme public scrutiny. Public outcry has forced the departures of the two superintendents the board has hired in the last five years. <\/p>\n

Its members are still struggling to find a superintendent to move the district past the Gonzales days.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Public scrutiny makes their work difficult. But it has the Las Cruces<\/st1:city><\/st1:place> schools headed in the right direction.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

If you aren\u2019t in favor of truth, change the subject<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The truth is that public scrutiny of conference committees would make the job of lawmakers much more difficult. Their decisions would be questioned. They would be challenged to act in a more ethical manner.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

A wise watcher of the Legislature said to me today that there\u2019s no good argument against open government, so if you oppose it, the only thing you can do is change the subject.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That\u2019s what those who opposed opening the secret meetings spent much of their time doing Thursday evening.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I was especially disappointed to see Sen. John Arthur Smith<\/a>, D-Deming, question at length the integrity of the director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government and essentially threaten him with a tax increase.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But let\u2019s start with the complaints about the governor, since that\u2019s where Sen. Timothy Jennings<\/a>, D-Roswell, began.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Jennings<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>, who has felt the wrath of the governor\u2019s vengeful veto pen in the past, said if lawmakers can\u2019t be free from fear of retaliation in conference committees, they\u2019ll go elsewhere to conduct business in secret.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

He argued that the secrecy of the committees protects the Legislature from the governor, which isn\u2019t really true. Opening the committees would mean the public \u2013 including the governor\u2019s office \u2013 could attend, but only lawmakers would be allowed to speak, so the governor\u2019s office wouldn\u2019t have any undue influence during hearings.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

And, who really believes the governor isn\u2019t already putting extreme pressure on members of conference committees to reconcile differences between House and Senate versions of bills in the way he sees fit?<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

After making that bogus argument, Jennings<\/st1:city><\/st1:place> went on to say he would be fine with opening conference committees, as long as meetings of the governor\u2019s cabinet and deliberations of appellate court judges or Supreme Court justices were also open.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Because of the constitutional issues such a move would raise, it was a bizarre, disingenuous proposal that Jennings<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> all but admitted he would support because he knew the governor would veto it. It was not intended to find compromise \u2013 it was simply a diversion from the real issue.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Bash the press, too<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The next to argue against opening conference committees was Smith. He agreed that doing so would only result in lawmakers deliberating elsewhere in secret.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

He then went on to quiz Sen. Dede Feldman<\/a>, D-Albuquerque and the sponsor of the proposal, Senate Bill 288<\/a>, about the integrity of Bob Johnson, the director of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Under questioning, Johnson revealed that he is paid by the foundation, that the foundation\u2019s annual budget amounts to just over $40,000, that he is registered as a lobbyist for the foundation and doesn\u2019t lobby for any other groups.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Smith inquired about members of the foundation. Johnson revealed that there are more than 200, but he didn\u2019t have a comprehensive list with him. He revealed the names of several, and most were newspaper editors or publishers.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

After a series of questions, Smith pointed out what he already knew: The foundation is largely supported by newspapers. Though Johnson, through Feldman, answered all of Smith\u2019s questions, the senator implied that Johnson wasn\u2019t being truthful and was dodging his questions.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Then he said what could be interpreted as a threat. The only groups supporting open conference committees were media organizations, Smith said, adding that he was equally concerned about the integrity of non-profits like Johnson\u2019s.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cFrom an accounting standpoint\u2026 maybe out ought to be taxing (them)\u2026 so we could know exactly what their income levels are,\u201d he said. \u201cWe have no idea how large these non-profits are.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Jennings<\/st1:city><\/st1:place> jumped on board with the press-bashing, as did Sens. Grubesic and Michael Sanchez<\/a>, D-Belen.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

They argued that the public wouldn\u2019t attend conference committees, and the media\u2019s intentional distortion of fact would give the public a negative impression of lawmakers, so they would be better off keeping conference committees secret.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cThe press is going to manipulate these committees to serve their needs \u2013 nothing more, nothing less,\u201d Grubesic said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

We want access to secret meetings so we can sensationalize the news to sell newspapers? In 2002, the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the LCPS board asked me to be prepared to testify, if I was needed, that statements and facts in my articles on the scandal were accurate. Though he had a strong enough case that he didn\u2019t need my testimony when the trial came around, my articles were factual enough that he used them to build his case.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Even more press-bashing<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Sensationalism wasn\u2019t the only complaint about newspapers made by the senators. Sanchez made the outrageous assertion that newspaper editorial boards have as much say in public policy as does the Legislature, so if conference committees should be open to the public, so should newspaper editorial board meetings.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That\u2019s absurd. Newspapers, like citizens and corporations, can lobby the Legislature and make arguments that influence public opinion, but it\u2019s only the Legislature that sets policy.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Add to that the fact that newspapers aren\u2019t funded with tax dollars, and that members of their editorial boards aren\u2019t elected officials, and Sanchez\u2019s argument is revealed as ridiculous.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Sanchez asked who is holding newspapers accountable. Here\u2019s the answer:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Newspaper organizations have a different system of accountability \u2013 they need people to buy and read their newspapers. The industry isn\u2019t currently doing a very good job, and it\u2019s paying for it with declining numbers of subscribers and advertising revenue. In addition, it\u2019s losing many reporters, like me, to the Internet.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

A $75-million egregious act makes the point
<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Sanchez also asked a question I found especially ludicrous:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat\u2019s so interesting about conference committees?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

At the end of the 2006 session, at some point in the process that wasn\u2019t public, Speaker of the House Ben Lujan<\/a> slipped a $75-million appropriation into the capital outlay bill to fund water rights settlements. Richardson<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> later vetoed it.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The funding was proposed during the session and not approved, so when it failed the test of scrutiny, Lujan bypassed the public process and made the business of spending public money his own.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It was an incredibly egregious, conceited act.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Did it happen in a conference committee? One lawmaker who was a member of that secret meeting told me it did not happen there, that he didn\u2019t know about the appropriation until the governor vetoed it. Regardless, the point remains the same: Unless every step of the legislative process is public, the potential for such abuse of power exists.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

While the LCPS board was buying secret insurance policies that would go to Gonzales\u2019 wife if he died, for example, teachers at Sierra<\/st1:placename> Middle School<\/st1:placetype><\/st1:place> couldn\u2019t assign homework because they didn\u2019t have enough textbooks for students to take home.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The public didn\u2019t know about it, so they couldn\u2019t oppose it. There was no scrutiny, no one asking the question of whether an insurance policy for the superintendent was more important than science textbooks.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Some lawmakers also argued during Thursday\u2019s meeting that many legislators feel freer to speak their minds and make ethical decisions if they are behind closed doors.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Sen. Cisco McSorley<\/a>, D-Albuquerque, had this response:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cWe have a history of keeping our votes secret, and when our votes were kept secret, the result of that wasn\u2019t that people had more courage to vote their conscience \u2013 they had just the opposite. They had a tendency to vote for things they knew their constituents didn\u2019t want for good reasons, and they were trying to avoid their constituents being informed,\u201d McSorley said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That\u2019s exactly why the citizens of Las Cruces<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> recalled the board members.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

McSorley spoke the truth \u2013 the simple, honest truth:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cIf you can\u2019t stand for principle, then you want your vote secret, it seems to me,\u201d he said. \u201cIf you want secrecy, you create a wall between yourself and your constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Shame on those who are holding that wall up. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

During Thursday\u2019s Senate debate on whether to open legislative conference committee meetings to the public, Sen. John Grubesic, D-Santa Fe, made mention of the 2002 convictions of five former members of the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education. Apparently, Grubesic worked at the attorney general\u2019s office when it prosecuted the case. He said there […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}