Ou Views: Consider records bill

State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard, No Party-Thibodeaux, is sponsoring a public records bill that, by the assessment of state Sen. Rick Gallot, a Ruston Democrat, has little chance of becoming law.

We hope that Gallot is wrong, although experience tells us that Gallot’s skepticism about the cause of greater transparency in state government is warranted. Even so, we’d like Richard’s bill, also sponsored by Gallot, to be the basis of some constructive discussion about government transparency — and not merely an exercise in futility.

Richard’s and Gallot’s bill would remove from state law a broad “deliberative process” exemption that allows a governor to shield many state government documents from public view. The bill, should it become law, would still allow internal communications between the governor, his chief of staff and his executive counsel to remain shielded from public view for up to 10 years. The bill would continue to give the governor the ability to have candid written communications with his top aides with some guarantee of privacy. However, the legislation would open to public view many other records, particularly those related to state budget discussions, acknowledging the simple principle that in a democracy, citizens should have a clear idea of how their government is being run.

In other words, the Richard-Gallot bill strikes a reasonable compromise between executive privilege and the public’s right to know.

We’d urge the governor to consider this compromise. Jindal has opposed similar legislation in the past — an odd position, we believe, for a governor who entered office professing to advance government transparency.

Should the governor wish to position himself as a champion of accountable government — a goal that any ambitious politician should embrace — then he should think about Richard’s and Gallot’s bill before dismissing it outright.

Ultimately, of course, the cause of government transparency should be about more than Jindal’s political calculus. Open government is good, regardless of who is governor.

In working with lawmakers on new legislation to broaden state government transparency, Jindal could leave a useful legacy of citizen empowerment that would resonate beyond his time in office. He can also demonstrate the power of political compromise, which is something that many people here and across America seem to want right now.

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 17/02/2013

"Jindal on the Road," was not open for comments, so let me support twinkie1cat's attention to Jindal's abuse of Louisiana to promote national attention to Jindal (how could it be favorable?).>>>>He traveled 85 of 250 standard work days last year, which may not represent 5 years, but assume it does. He was out of the most important job to Louisiana's people 34% of the time.>>>>If he stops national ambitions now, he would only owe the people of Louisiana 1.7 years of free service to repay what he has taken. If he maintains the national pace, his debt will accumulate to 2.7 years.>>>>This accounts only for time, not cash expenditures.>>>>I write opinion because I do not know the facts.

2) Comment by prbeav - 17/02/2013

twinkie1cat wrote a good post, which impressed me like this: when the voters discover an elected official cannot be trusted to attend to, much less uphold the Louisiana Constitution, they should be able to demand routine public debate of issues they deem of most concern.>>>>I hope a legislator develops her suggestion into a bill.>>>>Her post excites me that there are citizens who read the preamble to the US Constitution literally: We citizens who commit to seven stated goals govern the nation. To be of We the People, each adult must do the noble work to stay informed, understand the pros and cons, and find a path that fulfills the seven goals (see the preamble and ponder the seven goals).

3) Comment by [e-mail] - 17/02/2013

The problem with transparancy is how much is good? It's obvious that the people have a right to know what their elected representatives are scheming to do with our money and their power, but I don't know that reading, listening, or watching their ever communication would do anyting but make politicians even more devious and criminal than they already are.

4) Comment by gary - 17/02/2013

@8point6 - u funny. Still don't believe the results of Nov 12? Folks like you on the far right is the reason Hillary will win in 2016. Thanks.

5) Comment by twinkie1cat - 16/02/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

6) Comment by twinkie1cat - 16/02/2013

Particularly with Gov. Jindal, he should not have executive privilege nor be able to shield his work from the people, none of it, including his travel plans. He should also be required to hold a press conference with all interested media in which he must answer any questions asked honestly and truthfully at least once a month and be required to see anyone who wishes to talk with him on designated days at least twice a month. If the appointments last beyond business hours, they can go until 8PM. He would not be allowed to be out of town on those days except for illness or a family death. On business where there are sensitive negotiations are going on, such as when he is trying to get a business to locate in Louisiana, those negotiations should become public record as soon as a decision is made. When there are decisions made that will cause great impact on the citizens of the state, especially on the poor, such as the privatization of the public schools and the closing of Earl K. Long hospital the closing of state hospitals and prisons and the re-location of an OB/GYN clinic to a remote location with no public transportation, the actions should receive close scrutiny throughout any negotiations and be subjected to the will of the people via a vote, if necessary. Special attention needs to be paid to racial discrimination issues with these matters. And then there is the matter of double paying select staff members and firing anyone who disagrees with him. That kind of decision needs to go before the legislature. We almost had a law changed so that people who needed hospice care had to be locked up in a nursing home in order to get it if they were dependent on Medicaid! That should have rang a bell as loud as the one in the insurance commercial that the interests of the people are not a concern of Bobby Jindal. A quality governor would not mind obeying the rules. This one needs to be reined in immediately so that the word gets out that he is an elected official, not a reigning monarch. A compromise bill will not do with this governor. A crook who skimmed money for his personal benefit would be a better governor than one who clearly is trying to destroy his own state for the sake of impressing the national GOP.

7) Comment by 8point6 - 16/02/2013

"We’d urge the governor to consider this compromise." If "our views" "urges", then, it must be bad for the state. Would "our views" "urge" hussein to release his college records, or his passport? Yeah, I know. He "released" his "birth certificate" after three years.