Ignorance can be just as destructive as malice, which is why we are sorely disappointed by the reaction of our local legislative delegation to the Mississippi Ethics Commission’s final report that exempts the legislature from the state’s Open Meetings Act.
That ruling came after the commission voted 5-3 earlier this month, rejecting a complaint filed by the Mississippi Free Press which argued that the House Republican Caucus meetings should be open to the public and the media because its 75 members represent a quorum of the 122-member chamber.
Last week, the commission issued its final report explaining its vote — or trying to, at least.
The report said since the Open Meetings Act of 1975 did not expressly state the Open Meetings Act applies specifically to the legislature, the commission could not rule against the legislature when a quorum meets secretly to discuss the peoples’ business.
If possible, the explanation is even more absurd than the vote itself.
After all, the law lists some bodies that are exempt from the act — juries, law enforcement, etc. — so it strains credulity to suggest the biggest policy-making body in the state would be exempt. If the legislature that passed the law had intended to exempt itself from the requirements, it would have clearly stated as much, as it did in the other exemptions contained in the law.
The commission would have us believe that this is a complex and nuanced issue.
In truth, nothing could be more simple. When a policy-making body establishes a quorum to discuss the people’s business, those meetings should be open to the public and media, even if votes are not being taken.
We expect open government from our city and county lawmaking bodies, and the Ethics Commission has consistently helped enforce that openness. Why should anything be different on the state level?
The idea of meeting secretly to discuss policies that affect citizens should be condemned without hesitation. Yet as a group, the reaction of our local delegation could be characterized as a shrug of the shoulders.
Two members of the delegation — Rep. Dana McLean (R, Columbus) and Rep. Rob Roberson (R, Starkville) — seemed to miss the point entirely, suggesting that if the Open Meetings Act were to apply to the legislature it would mean caucuses could not meet. That’s simply not true. What would be true is that those caucus meetings would be open to the public. We struggle to understand the need for secrecy. Bad things happen in the dark.
McLean justifies these secret meetings because she says votes aren’t taken at the meetings. Even so, rest assured, plans are made and heads are counted. It’s naive to suggest otherwise.
Two other representatives — Andy Boyd (R, Columbus) and Kabir Karriem (D, Columbus) — said they did not know enough about the commission’s ruling to offer an opinion.
The issue has gotten plenty of coverage throughout the state. What is there to know that’s not already apparent, we wonder?
To their credit, two other members of the local delegation — Sen. Bart Williams (R, Starkville) and, to a lesser degree, Sen. Chuck Younger (R, Columbus) — said they opposed the ruling. Younger’s objection seemed to be more about where caucuses were held rather than whether they should be public. Younger said the caucuses shouldn’t be held in the Capitol building, although it’s hard to understand what material difference the location of these meetings would make.
Alone among the delegation, Williams seems to grasp the importance of conducting business in open meetings. We applaud him for that.
We are particularly troubled by Rep. Roberson’s position. If anyone should understand the Open Meetings Act and its importance it is Roberson. As attorney for the Oktibbeha County Board of Supervisors, Roberson has had years of experience abiding by the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Does Roberson believe what’s good for the goose (supervisors) is not good for the gander (legislature)?
Roberson’s explanation for his support of these secret meetings is that a ruling disallowing them unfairly targets Republicans and excludes other caucasus, including the Black Caucus and the Democratic Caucus.
The exclusion claim is misleading at best. The Republican Caucus alone represents a quorum of the legislature and therefore has the power to enact policy exclusively within its membership.
That our delegation would appear to be so ambivalent about this issue, like the commission ruling itself, is inexplicable and disturbing.
This is a good time for citizens to inform their legislators of that.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 43 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.