HB 626: Secret online meetings?

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Virtual+secrecy%3a+Right-to-know+bill+fatally+flawed&articleId=b7b59c6e-3356-4d57-bc9b-f859a1c682bd

Virtual secrecy: Right-to-know bill fatally flawed

LOTS of scary stuff goes on in Internet chat rooms. One of the scariest would be public officials holding secret chats to decide public business. If House Bill 626 passes the Senate tomorrow, that could happen.

The bill?s sponsors claim that it does nothing more than apply the state?s right-to-know law to electronic communications among public officials. For instance, the bill would require that if a quorum of public officials discusses business via e-mail, that would constitute a public meeting and would have to be announced in advance. Copies of the e-mails would then have to be made available at the next physical public meeting.

Sounds like a prohibition of secret Internet meetings. At first, we thought so. However, the bill?s language would give the OK for virtual public meetings. Public bodies could announce these electronic meetings, conduct them via e-mail, chat room or teleconference without public participation or oversight, then release the transcript at the next real public meeting.

Such virtual meetings would be terrific shams. While the ?public? chat was going, officials could chat with each other in secret either via chat room, e-mail or telephone. They also could alter e-mail or chat transcripts before making them public.

The bill makes clear that it would open the doors to virtual public meetings. The fiscal note states that meetings could legally be held ?by ?chat room? reached from an attendee?s own computers or conference call to their own telephones.?

If a public body meets online and no citizen is able to hear it, is the meeting really public? Not at all. But this bill would allow that.

If lawmakers really want to enhance the public?s right to know, they will not pass this bill in its current form. Legislators should ban meetings that take place exclusively through electronic means. They then should state that public officials may not conduct public business except when a quorum is physically present in a single open, public location. Anything less would make upholding the right-to-know law virtually impossible.

[aries]

Looks like time to barrage our reps with emails again 

[Dreepa]

My town tried to have a nonpublic session this past Monday but I stopped them.  I asked under what right they could do it.  They said it was a legal matter.  I said... only 'pending litigation is allowed'.  So they decided not to go nonpublic.  I waited until they all left that night so they couldn't have it as soon as I left.

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+right+to+know%3a+Keeping+the+public+in+the+dark&articleId=15980456-bf49-4e28-955f-cc9c07b7406e

No right to know: Keeping the public in the dark

HOUSE BILL 626, originally intended to shine the light of open government on electronic meetings of government officials, now would allow public officials to conduct business in secret, entirely out of view of the public. It absolutely must not pass.

The bill would allow elected officials to meet by telephone, computer, and even socially. A quorum of a public body could meet, claim the meeting was by ?chance? or social in nature, and legally keep the public out. A telephone conference call or Internet chat room gathering would be a legal meeting.

The amended version of this legislation is a terrible sham of a bill. It should be called the No-Right-To-Know Act. It is a naked attempt to exclude the public from participation in government decision-making. It would eviscerate the right-to-know law and allow elected representatives to do their business entirely in the dark.

The Senate votes on the bill this week. Any senator who votes for this legislation does not deserve the title of ?public servant.?

[Dave Ridley]

i understand the senate killed it , if so good for them.