 |
The County Line
- Spring Issue 2005
New "Open Meetings" law takes effect October 1
Now that the ink has dried and everyone knows the new rules, we're about to find out if we've addressed the disease or just one of its symptoms.
With the passage of a new "open meetings" law in Alabama, many folks have blasted the trumpet and proclaimed that all is right with the world. Meetings in Alabama will now be open. Sunshine will fall on the shoulders of all public bodies. The public will now know how its "business" is being conducted. And, if not, then local officials will find themselves on the business end of a lawsuit.
As if the passage of a new law - albeit a much longer and, perhaps, more confusing new one - could solve the conflicts between reporters and the public officials they are expected to scrutinize. Oh, if the worlds of government and politics were that easy to polish.
The guess here is that sometime next winter everyone will realize the problems between elected officials and members of the news media are vested in decades of conflict, mistrust, miscommunication and misunderstanding. The state's old - and now repealed - "open meetings" law has contributed to these problems. But it is not THE reason for these problems. But that's just one old reporters' opinion.
Although the effective date of the new law is not until Oct. 1, 2005, the Alabama Legislature kicked off its 2005 regular session by quickly passing this document to smiles from the governor, attorney general and a host of other citizens groups. The last law stood for almost 90 years. It was the subject of many courtroom battles. It was at the center of much local conflict. And its misapplication has run many a good public official out of public office.
During the last six or eight years that old law became such a source of conflict, argument and finger-pointing that the Alabama Legislature was willing to embrace the passage of this new statute with almost no discussion. In the Senate, the bill passed in less than 10 minutes. The only question focused more on procedure than anything else. The House debate lasted longer, but only by a few minutes. Just one "unfriendly" amendment was offered. And it was dispatched with the coolness of old Willie Mays drifting under a pop fly in the August sun.
This new law, forged through many hours of negotiation often held in this Association's Montgomery office, contains a great deal of language from the pin of ACCA staff members. That is not to say that the Association heralded the bills' passage or worked to push it through the legislative process. We did none of those things. But we did sit across the table from the representatives of the state's newspapers and we worked to make changes in the bill that would reduce the conflict between reporters and officials.
The fruits of those labors won't be known for many years. Will this new law make things better on the local level or just serve to fuel a whole new set of conflicts? Only time will tell.
No one on this side of the table believes that the repeal of the old law at midnight on September 30 will signal the end of all questions and disagreements. In fact, it is likely that we will have just as many questions as before. The questions will be new ones, focusing on new language and new procedures. But there will be many questions, nonetheless.
You see, there is an inherent conflict between the news media and government officials. It is healthy. And, if you check your history, our founding fathers were hoping that the news media would always look over government's shoulder. But they were also hoping that the media's gaze would be spiced with a little more "respect" than has been displayed in recent years here in Alabama.
Conflict is healthy. Disrespect is not.
The process toward the passage of this new "open meetings" law really began about eight months ago with a meeting between the Association's leadership and the leadership of the Alabama Press Association. It was a wonderfully productive afternoon - no punches were thrown, no names were called out in anger and only once or twice were fingers pointed. Following that meeting, the respective Association staffs were told to get together and work out a bill that both sides could tolerate.
In retrospect, that meeting was probably the best thing to happen during the entire process. But it will be a shame if that meeting signals the ending - rather than the beginning - of positive communication between the news media in Alabama and the government officials it covers.
Sometime after October 1 in a courthouse on the square in downtown Alabama, several county officials will find themselves in a room together. Someone will look around and note that the number of officials equals a quorum of the board. Then, a few minutes later, a member of the local news media will wander by the room. Such an occurrence is predictable, no matter how hard everyone tries.
The real test for this new law is what happens next. Will that reporter stomp off and write a blistering story about public officials who are ignoring the new law? Will the county officials slam the door in the face of the reporter, announcing that because they are not "deliberating" the reporter has no right to attend their private session? Will some public activist run down the hall and file a lawsuit in the local circuit court?
Or will everyone involved look at each other, recognize the important part everyone plays in our state's future and calmly move forward in a positive way?
Who knows? But you can rest assured that the new document now officially called the "Alabama Open Meetings Act" will have almost no impact on what happens.
Nope, the outcome of that meeting - and the fate of this new law - rests not in words on a piece of paper, but in the attitude of the people who must come face-to-face with each other in the halls of the courthouse in downtown Alabama.
|
|
