The recent Boston Globe editorial endorsing the repeal of the state legislature’s statutory exemption from the requirements of the Open Meeting Law is, to put it mildly, neither well-argued nor persuasive. It was interesting to me that the least reasonable claims in the editorial were offered via quotes from Mary Connaughton, the “director of government transparency” for the conservative-leaning Pioneer Institute. It was almost as if the editors understood the weakness of their case and wanted to deflect responsibility.
Their case for subjecting the entire legislative process on Beacon Hill to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law is fundamentally wrong-headed. The application of the Open Meeting Law to some of the essential elements of the legislative process would cripple members’ ability to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully and would be a boon to opposition researchers and purveyors of the “politics of personal destruction.” The desire to enhance citizen access to and participation in government deliberations is understandable, but the (ostensibly) unintended consequences of subjecting all the deliberations of state legislators to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are quite substantial and problematic. Subjecting the entire legislative process on Beacon Hill to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law would be like allowing NFL football fans to call for instant replay anytime they disagreed with a referee’s call. Would that chasten the refs? Probably. Would it also severely reduce the flow and quality of play? Of course it would.
I wonder if the Globe editors believe America’s democratic experiment would be healthier today if the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were not held in secret. Were Ms. Connaughton around to comment on that decision at the time, would she have said that our constitution’s Framers “don’t seem to realize that transparency brings good decision-making”? If James Madison pushed back on Ms. Connaughton’s claim, would she have replied that “[t]he cure-all is transparency”? Transparency clearly does not always bring good decision making or increased public trust in government. The complete failure of the Globe editors to even mention the logic of exempting elected legislatures from Open Meeting Laws is shocking. If they aren’t aware of it, then they are much too ignorant on the subject to opine authoritatively. If they simply chose to ignore it, then their intellectual dishonesty should embarrass them. Were the editors endorsing the selective application of the Open Meeting Law’s requirements to certain elements of the legislative process, they would be on much more solid ground. Several states, for example, do apply open meeting laws to legislative floor sessions and committee meetings. Instead, however, they are endorsing a Republican representative’s proposal calling for the “simple” elimination of the General Court’s statutory exemption from the law and substantiating their position with the opinions of a partisan critic of Beacon Hill Democrats.
Its 2019 and the state’s Open Meeting Law does need updating, but that updating is anything but “simple.” The law needs to be made more consist with 21st Century communications technology and practice. Such changes would not only improve transparency but also reduce the cynical use of the Open Meeting Law as a partisan political weapon or as a vehicle for newspaper editors to take easy, crowd pleasing shots at politicians.