UNBRIDLED SECRECY POISONS GOOD GOVERNMENT

To the detriment of the public, transparency of government in Colorado is taking a pounding from court interpretations that continue to weaken key elements of the state’s Open Meetings and Open Records laws. Two current examples:

Based on fairly clear-cut evidence, the Longmont Times-Call filed a complaint in Boulder District Court in June alleging that the local city council violated the executive-session provision of the Open Meetings law (i.e., no public policy can be formed or straw votes taken behind closed doors). Five months later, in November, the judge ruled that since the executive session was announced as an attorney-client briefing wherein no tape recordings or written records were required, there was nothing to review and sent the case back to the newspaper, leaving the alleged violation unaddressed.

Obviously, this half-baked ruling invites abuse of the OML by opportunistic public officials who can now hide behind the anonymity and confidentiality of the executive session at will by simply calling it an “attorney-client briefing.”

The Open Records law: In an effort to get some idea of with whom and what our governor might be discussing in the calls he makes when conducting the people’s business on his private telephone, The Denver Post has been rebuffed by the Colorado Court of Appeals which won’t allow the public watchdog to see the records.

Another precedent-setting court decision that, if allowed to stand, will encourage public officials at all levels in Colorado to govern via their private phones and the public be damned.

Secrecy is making serious inroads into our governmental systems; not good news if you believe in freedom.

JOURNALISTS MAY BE SELF-DESTRUCTING

Regarding the alleged need for Congress to enact a federal shield law to protect reporters and their sources, as a retired longtime newsperson I must say beware -- for whatever privilege the Washington politicians bestow, they can easily regulate, license, amend, use for ransom, or snatch it away. Requesting the government to protect a crucial reportorial practice that the watchdog itself indicates it is no longer willing to defend on principle by going to jail if necessary, does not speak well of a fearless free-press and sends the wrong message to the public.

It may well be declared nostalgic, but we in and of the press cannot let the basic idea of freedom of the press die. Freedom of religion, speech and the press are specifically cited in the First Amendment as being protected from government interference. There is nothing in there that says the judicial branch and its occasionally overzealous judges and prosecutors or the legislative or executive branches are free to override this profound protection. The legal profession has no similar exemption. Yet, as we all know, lawyers are free to routinely enjoy impenetrable attorney-client secrecy as they go about their work without requesting a shield law.

Colorado is generally regarded in the news business as having a good shield law and since it’s close to home, there is less danger of it being tweaked on a politically partisan basis. But unlike the simple and direct language of the First Amendment, Colorado’s shield law typically includes caveats, one of which is that a newsperson does not have to disclose a source “unless the information cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means.” New York Times reporter Judith Miller of Libby-trial fame arguably could not have been saved from jail under Colorado’s shield law.

This is not to argue that freedom of the press is absolute. Rather it is a call for media-types to concentrate their time, energy and money toward defending the First Amendment, and doing everything else they can within their own organizations such as publicizing its value to the public and, most important, working to keep from abusing its privileges themselves.

The only answer for the newspersons who believe they must have a shield law would be, I suppose, to amend the U.S. Constitution and embed their own version. But, as the noted contemporary journalist John Seigenthaler is quoted, “The people are not on our side,” indicating that the press stands to come up short even if a Constitutional Convention were to occur, which in itself is not a likely event.

So here is where America’s journalists are, back to the only protection that counts: the First Amendment.

P.

BAL SALVAGES SOME EARLIER PRINTING EQUIPMENT

Members of the Book Arts League deserve kudos for their efforts to establish a collection of outmoded letterpress printing equipment at their home base, the historic Ewing Farm on north 95th street in Lafayette.

BAL held an open house Dec. 5 at the Farm, and what a surprise it was for me to see a hand-fed “snapper” platen press in operation again, after having fed one by the hour upon learning the trade as a printer’s devil over 60 years ago. Unlike the motor-driven commercial presses of the past, the “snapper” on display is hand-powered—probably by choice for safety reasons. But that has no effect on the quality of the printed product it churns out, as evidenced by the group’s nice self-produced souvenir bookmark.

Noticeably missing from this collection is the iron monster that revolutionized the printing industry, the Linotype machine. Rarely found and still in use at only two Colorado newspapers, the Crescent at Saguache and the South Y-W Star at Kirk, surely BAL could find one somewhere to display, if it so desires.

BAL and volunteers have already come a long way in establishing an interesting collection at an equally interesting historic farm, both well worth the visit.
P.

COMMISSIONERS SET LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR FELLOW LIBERALS

According to the Longmont Times-Call in an article filed by reporter John Fryer, the Boulder County Commissioners have compiled a wish list for the Colorado Legislature’s 2010 session. The itemized list follows with my comments added in italics.

• Criminal sentencing reforms that promote drug-treatment courts and alternative treatments.
Code words for legalization.

• Allowing local governments to post certain legal notices online rather than requiring them to be published in newspapers.
If they truly believed in transparency, they would publish and post too.

• Limiting the interest rates and other fees charged with “payday” loans, as well as limiting the number of consecutive loans such lenders can make to a consumer.
The county commissioners should be examining their own list of unfair fees.

• Allowing counties and statutory cities and towns — those without home-rule charters — to enact ordinances that could require existing residential and commercial buildings to meet minimum energy-performance standards.
Who’s going to pay for all of this? Oh, see next item.

• Allowing counties and municipalities to impose fees that building owners would be allowed to pay in lieu of meeting “green” building standards for their structures, if those owners cannot make required energy-conservation improvements.
Another tax increase masquerading as a fee.

• Allowing state and local governments to collect sales taxes on items purchased over the Internet.
Our three commissioners might explain why their fellow liberals in Congress and the White House refuse to act on this.

• Providing a “pay-as-you-go” auto insurance option for Colorado vehicle owners, tying insurance premiums to the number of miles driven.
More miles, higher premiums -- just the thing for those rural residents.

• Legislation or administrative changes to improve eligible Coloradans’ access to Medicaid and Children’s Health Plan Plus programs.
No use thinking about this until Congress gets through playing around with healthcare reform.

• Giving counties authority to impose a transportation maintenance fee to help pay for local roads’ maintenance needs.
Yet another tax increase masked as a fee so that even more money can be transferred out of the R&B fund. The people are catching on.