Government in the shadows
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]Government knows best.
That, we're certain, is the prevailing attitude at Utah's Capitol. Our elected and appointed leaders make decisions, and really don't appreciate those of us who aren't in government looking over their shoulders while they work.
That's the take-away lesson from various information-throttling measures being proposed in state government this year, and if Utahns don't move quickly, their rights to the free flow of information could be curtailed.
On this page yesterday, we remarked on an attempt at the Legislature to keep private any information about formal charges or disciplinary actions against police officers. It's an indefensible effort, yet it's been receiving discussion at the Legislature as if it is a legitimate debate.
But there are more items worthy of Utahns' concern:
* House Bill 166 deals with the minutes of public meetings. It would amend the state's Open and Public Meetings Act by requiring that minutes from, say, a city council meeting "to be available to the public within 14 days after the date of the meeting or at the next scheduled meeting, whichever is later." Furthermore, it would allow the public body to classify the unapproved minutes as a "protected draft," thereby off-limits to public inspection until the minutes are approved.
It's an effort to further chip away at the public's right to access information about its government in a timely manner. With the technology available today to governmental bodies at all levels, there's no good excuse for turning back the clock when it comes to making information quickly available. Its purpose is primarily to throw up an obstacle to Utahns who want to keep a watchful eye on their government.
* Years ago, Utah courts began installing court-operated video cameras in courtrooms. The reason was obvious: It provided a terrific record of the proceedings that could subsequently be used by the participants in the trial. Also of consequence, the videos could be reviewed by members of the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission to verify or reject allegations of judicial misconduct.
Lately, however, as older video equipment has malfunctioned or become obsolete, courts are replacing video equipment with audio-only systems. Reasons given for these changes usually focus on cost: Audio-recording systems, it is alleged, are less expensive than video-recording systems.
We're not at all sure the cost argument holds water. The price of video systems has been falling steadily in recent years. Furthermore, cost shouldn't be the determining factor. The public and media are not allowed to record court proceedings with their own video equipment, so are dependent on the court-run video systems.
The choice is clear: Either the courts maintain video-recording systems on their own, or they should allow media and individual spectators to record proceedings with their own video equipment.
* Courts are not only retreating on the video front, they are debating whether to prohibit still photographs of any exhibits or documents in a courtroom that have not yet been entered into the public record. It's a direct response to the 2007 Warren Jeffs trial, in which a newspaper photo of a document being handled by the polygamist leader's attorneys was analyzed and found to contain statements about Jeffs not being a true prophet.
It's bizarre, since documents in a courtroom are constantly being handled and waved by participants in trials and hearings. Virtually any photo taken inside the room would contain images of documents not entered into the public record. How is a photographer supposed to reasonably know what documents are allowable and which ones aren't?
* Just as bad is a proposed rule disallowing a photographer in a courtroom to photograph any person "known to the photographer to be a minor." This apparently includes even minors who are being charged as adults for their crimes.
There is a relentless march against open government in this state. There is an obvious feeling among those in power that information can damage them -- information is a threat. Therefore, they're always trying to remove it from public view.
This is not a recipe for good government.
Add Your Comment
