ASSOCIATED PRESS PACKAGE ON EDITORIAL ROUNDUP -  SUNSHINE LAW REFORM

Non-Associated Press members have permission to use this package with proper credit to the AP

The following is a roundup of recent editorials from Tennessee members of The Associated Press urging reforms in Tennessee's open meetings law. In some cases, the editorials have been edited for length. They do not reflect an editorial position of the AP but represent the opinions of the newspapers from which they are taken.

The Jackson Sun, Nov. 23

Once again, Tennessee is bringing up the rear in an important national survey. This time, it's Tennessee's Sunshine Law that's the object of shame. Clearly, when the General Assembly convenes in January, it's a law that needs to be revisited and substantially strengthened.

A recent tally of reported open meetings violations in Tennessee found that there have been 45 reported violations during the first 10 months of this year. That's up from 39 violations in 2004 and 31 in 2003. What's worse, Tennessee's Sunshine law ranks among the bottom five nationally.

Part of the reason for that, according to Frank Gibson, the executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, is that the law, as it now stands, is virtually unenforceable. Currently, there is little punishment for violating the law. And although there is a movement afoot to reverse this, the General Assembly has for years exempted itself from the law.

Madison County is no stranger to Sunshine law violations. Consider:

In January, The Jackson Sun sued the city of Jackson to gain access to Diamond Jaxx financial records, copies of police field interview cards and a 911 tape following a shooting at the local TDOT office.

Last spring, the Madison County Commission held three secret meetings during the search that resulted in the hiring of Mike Nichols as county finance director. Those meetings ultimately had to be redone.

Tennessee's Sunshine law needs work because, despite what politicians might think, citizens do care about what their elected leaders are up to. More than that, they have an obligation to hold their elected leaders accountable.

That can't happen if the public's business is conducted in secret. And it certainly can't happen if citizens have to go to court just to find out what's covered under the law.

Lawmakers should take steps to make it easier for citizens to get public records. They also need to strengthen penalties for violators.

Lawmakers like to talk about the public trust, and strengthening the Sunshine Law would be a good first step in restoring that important relationship. Doing nothing at this point simply is unacceptable.

The Tennessean, Nashville, Dec. 4

What have governments in Tennessee got to hide? Quite a lot, judging from the number of closed door meetings.

The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government reported that 45 violations of the state's open meetings law occurred in the first 10 months of this year, up six over last year and up by 14 violations from two years ago.

Some of the violations occurred close to home. One of the cases cited was the Metro Council members' use of e-mail to conduct discussions about an alternative budget.

It's bad enough that local governments feel they can overlook the law, but when they conduct business in private, they show the worst kind of contempt for the people they supposedly represent.

Meetings about government business shouldn't accommodate those in office. They are for citizens to share in government information and learn what elected officials are doing with their money, their schools and their services.

Tennessee's open meetings law asks very little of public officials. The state law ranks in the bottom five sunshine laws in the nation.

Elected officials don't have to re-enact laws they passed in private. The General Assembly even managed to exempt itself from the law. And the onus in challenging violations is on the public, not the public body involved _ a situation that elected officials shouldn't want to visit on voters.

There has been much discussion around Tennessee this year about ways to address ethics problems and rebuild the public's faith in government.

Here's a tip for state lawmakers: The public will not trust _ and should not trust _ a government body that meets in secret.

If the state Legislature is at all serious about dealing with ethics, it will include a measure that requires all legislative meetings, including committee meetings, to be open to the public.

Such a step would have the added benefit of setting an example for local and state government agencies. And by doing all the people's business in the open, elected officials are less likely to forget for whom they are working.

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Dec. 30

Open meetings laws are a bit like insurance policies: People don't realize they need them until they really need them.

The average citizen probably doesn't spend much time worrying about whether elected officials are following the proper procedure for conducting business in public.

That is, until that citizen appears before the city council or county commission to protest rezoning for the property across the street. Then that citizen might understandably be enraged to find out that council members or commissioners have already discussed the situation privately, maybe over drinks with the developer who's requesting the rezoning.

The truth is, Tennessee's open meetings law could be a lot stronger. The law hasn't been substantially updated in more than three decades.

State legislators are scheduled to return to Nashville Jan. 10 for a special session on ethics. As the Tennessee Press Association has suggested, this would be a perfect time to review and update the open meetings law.

As the law is currently written, elected officials who choose to violate it have little to fear.

Accused violators are provided a legal defense that's paid for at the expense of taxpayers. Meanwhile, the people who file open meetings complaints are responsible for covering their own legal costs.

The law should set up a system in which prosecutors investigate and prosecute open meetings complaints.

If courts find complaints to be valid, the current law doesn't provide for fines or any other penalties to be levied against violators. Elected officials probably spend more time worrying about getting pinched for jaywalking than they do about open meetings violations.

The Press Association's suggestion for a modest fine of $50 per violation seems reasonable, maybe even a tad on the low side.

Other parts of the law need to be clarified as well. In an age of text messaging and video conferencing, the definition of meeting participation needs to be clearer. It's no longer safe to assume that an elected official provided no input into decision-making because he or she didn't physically attend a meeting.

Also, the law should clearly apply to all deliberations by elected officials, not just the final votes.

And the law should specify the circumstances in which elected officials are allowed to meet privately with their lawyers under the "attorney-client privilege." Some elected officials have abused that privilege by suggesting any decision that could be the subject of future legal action may be discussed with attorneys in private.

Also, the law should clearly state that nonprofit or quasi-governmental organizations that accept taxpayer funding and assume responsibility for providing public services are also subject to open meetings restrictions.

State lawmakers have a lot of ethics reforms to discuss next month, but there's no good reason why changes to the open meetings law shouldn't be part of their agenda as well.

If they want to increase public confidence in government, then one of the best ways to do that is to make sure citizens are kept in the loop while elected officials are deliberating.

The Leaf-Chronicle, Clarksville, Jan. 8

The state Legislature will be meeting in special session this month to discuss ethics reform. One item that should be placed on the agenda is the state's Open Meetings law.

Also known as the Sunshine Law, the legislation was a model for the country at the time it was passed. But that was 1974, and there have been no significant updates except for those imposed through court rulings.

The Tennessee Press Association points out that among its deficiencies is that no penalties for violations are spelled out. Moreover, those who believe there's a violation have to pay their own legal costs to press the case, while taxpayers pick up the tab to defend public officials who broke the law.

Under the 1974 law, state legislators conveniently exempted themselves. That means that for more than 30 years, they've legally been able to conduct some of the people's business behind closed doors and then emerge with the matters settled.

As far as meeting notification are concerned, the law doesn't set out any kind of form that the notices must follow. It also doesn't define what constitutes an adequate public notice for all meeting types regular, special and emergency.

A survey by the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government of newspaper clips during 2003-05 found 115 violations. While the majority of the complaints came from the press, 45 were from members of public bodies, mayors, county commissioners, attorneys for public bodies, citizens and other government agencies.

This is, then, far more than a press issue. It is a matter that should be of concern all citizens in Tennessee.

The government should be working on behalf of the people. That means the people have a right to know what decisions are being contemplated on their behalf and to have input in the process before those decisions are finalized.

The Legislature has an opportunity this month to again put Tennessee at the forefront of models in open meetings laws. It should seize the chance because the people of this state deserve it.