Standard-Examiner Editorial Board

The Utah Legislature is well into its 2019 session, and while some issues have grabbed attention and headlines like tax reform and changes to voters’ desires with Medicaid expansion, some bills perhaps have a less flashy allure and yet are just as significant if passed.

Such is the case we believe with HB 74 advocating for open meeting amendments proposed by Davis County’s own Rep. Stephen Handy and sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler. While our state representatives accomplish plenty of great legislation in a given session, this will not be one of those.

Northern Utah residents should be alarmed by HB 74 and the costly, slippery slope Handy suggests Utah venture down in order to allow government more secrecy in its decision-making behind closed doors.

The bill, passed by the House on Thursday with a majority (55-16-4), aims to modify open and public meetings so exceptions can be made to hold closed meetings with the explicit purpose of avoiding public knowledge regarding the discussion of audit reports.

Those politicians who weighed the serious consequences of this bill and voted against it should be noted, namely those locally elected: Rep. Timothy Hawkes, R-Centerville; Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Syracuse; Rep. Calvin Musselman, R-West Haven; and Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise.

Why are we concerned along with them?

Anytime government moves to further restrict the public’s knowledge to their own government’s workings and decisions, we believe greater opportunities for corruption and poor decision making flourish.

HB 74, if passed by the Senate, will no doubt function as a building block in future legislative sessions to further dam the flow of information to the public — carve out by carve out — by governmental entities that fear or feel inconvenienced by the transparency open meetings law demands.

Handy describes it as a bill that narrowly carves out an instance that has been an inconvenience for the State Board of Education and other boards when they are audited to allow them to discuss findings of the audit privately. The contradictory argument is that, somehow, less public knowledge of their discussions actually provides better transparency.

Unfortunately, we must think of the abuse that could come from this. While many representatives insisted that it would never be used for public bodies to huddle up before something uncomfortable was released to come up with a PR plan, that is not something they can guarantee — as this bill would provide the exception for that environment to take place, as alluded to by Rep. Brady Brammer, R- Pleasant Grove.

We are not in favor of any reduction of the public’s access to a governmental body’s discussion and decisions. The discussions and course of action decided upon by a governmental body is just as important as the information in a report itself.

The Standard-Examiner is not the only entity that opposes this bill. The Deseret News Editorial Board also issued opinion on Friday that they believe HB 74 is “A dangerous path to eroding Utah’s Open Meetings Act”; the Daily Herald in Utah County — owned by the same company as the Standard-Examiner — opposes this bill, as does the Utah Media Coalition which gave the bill a “Lights Out” from GRAMA Watch, “.”

For those also concerned with the future consequences of this bill, we encourage you to reach out to your members of the Senate this coming week in opposition.

Utah is known for many virtuous and valuable viewpoints; let’s not allow our government to earn the reputation of carving out transparency.