Recently in Transparency Category
By RAY CARBONE
New Hampshire Union Leader
Monday, Jul. 19, 2010
The New Hampshire Attorney General's office has issued a cease-and-desist order to five people, including a Moultonborough selectman and a former school board member, for their roles in distributing political flyers last year.
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge said the five violated the state's election laws by failing to identify the flyer as "political advertising" and not including information identifying who was sending it out.
"(You) are hereby ordered to cease and desist from distributing any future political advertisement without first complying with the signature (identification) requirements contained in RSA 664:14," the order reads.
The flyer urged voters in March 2009 to turn down an article on town and school ballots regarding adoption of Senate Bill 2, which would replace town meeting with voters going to the polls on town election day. Voters turned down the SB2 idea at both the town and school district meetings. The district vote was 746-975, while the town vote was 704-975.
Selectman Karel Crawford and former Moultonborough School Board member and current Supervisor of the Checklist Laurie Whitley are cited by the Attorney General's Office. The three others are Lisa St. Amand, who has been a member of the town's Recreation Strategic Planning Group, Mary Ann McRae and Anita Blood.
Efforts to reach the five yesterday were unsuccessful.
According to the report, investigator Richard Valenti began looking into the issue last July after state officials received a formal complaint from resident Paul Punturieri. He charged that Whitley had violated RSA 664 by sending out the election flyers without identifying who was responsible for the material.
"It states at the bottom that the Selectmen, School Board and Advisory Budget Committee do not support SB2, but nowhere does it mention that she is a member of the School Board and running for office, nor that this flyer was not actually sent by the School Board, Selectmen or Advisory Board," the complaint reads.
In the interviews recorded in Valenti's report, none of the five reported knowingly sending out a flyer without their signature, but said that it was possible some flyers could have gone out unsigned. In his interview with Whitley, Valenti said she noted that "SB2 has been on the ballot two years in a row and it has come close to passing." Whitley said no town funds were used to mail the flyers.
Just days before the election, the flyers were criticized by the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance -- on whose website Punturieri identifies himself as a one-time member.
In his letter to the state, Punturieri said he feels as if voters did not get a fair chance to hear both sides of the issue before voting. Previous votes on SB2 in the town and school district have been close, (but) "I do not believe it was a fair fight (this time) as powers that be did not play by the rules."
Yesterday, School Board Chairman Mark Borrin said he would issue a formal statement this afternoon, but added he did not believe the report or the orders have anything to do with either the school board or the district.
"It never became an issue the board talked about," he said. "The issue involves individuals who are on the board, but it wasn't a board matter."
Wednesday, July 1, 2010
SB2 is the shorthand title for the Official Ballot Act, RSA 40:13, which allows voters in towns and non-city school districts to decide budgetary and other matters by secret ballot during pre-set polling hours rather than through the traditional Town Meeting format at which those matters get debated, possibly amended and ultimately decided by the vote of those attending the meeting.
Since RSA 40:13 took effect in the 1990s, the consideration on whether to adopt it has been hard-fought. Not only have officials and private citizens strongly argued its pros and cons but, quite often, the protagonists impugn the motives — and sometimes even the decency — of those on the other side of the question.
This should not be all that surprising. The SB2 debate strikes at the core of a community's identity and the place that heritage and tradition play in that identity.
An example of how these feelings can play out is in Moultonborough. Efforts to get the town to switch to the SB2 format have so far failed.
As a result of the last effort to pass SB2, some supporters went to the state Attorney General's Office to complain that there was an organized anti-SB2 effort underway which was in violation of the state's political advertising laws. Those lodging the complaint to the AG's office alleged that the anti-SB2 group in its campaign was sending out flyers which failed to explicitly state that the circulars were political advertising and in addition did not identify who was behind the campaign.
The Attorney General's Office last week issued a cease-and-desist order, saying such efforts in the future must conform to the law's disclosure requirements.
This issue might seem to some like a tempest in a teacup, but the fact that the anti-SB2 group included a selectman and someone who at the time was serving on the School Board raises some issues.
Elected officials certainly are well within their rights to offer their opinions on public issues, and there certainly is no reason for them to feel they need to apologize for doing so. Therefore, why would elected officials want to be less than forthcoming about their views on a critical issue?
As so often is the case in controversial matters, members of official bodies are not of one mind. Some, therefore, question the propriety of one member of the group taking a stand when that view does not reflect the overall sentiment of the group.
Nothing should inhibit elected officials from speaking their minds, but they should do so forthrightly and with complete transparency. If a group, like a board of selectmen or school board, wishes to take a stand, that, too, is their right. Or, if they choose not to do so, they should not stand in the way of the individual members from exercising their rights as individuals.
Wise decisions are reached when discussion and debate are open and vigorous and in a way in which the public can assess the credibility of the arguments.
That means openness and playing by the rules
In light of the recent Cease and Desist orders issued by the Attorney General's office towards former Board of Selecetmen Chair and current Vice Chair Karel Crawford, and former School Board Chair and current Supervisor of the Checklist, Laurie Whitley, we at the MCA feel it is appropriate to comment.
We fought a fair fight for SB2 in March of 2009. We now find out that the election may not necessarily be reflective of the voice of the people perhaps as a result of the actions of the above board memebers.
Karel was asked to explain about the fields for
in athletics. Donna Kuethe stated that more than just children are using the fields and the demand is increasing. The Selectmen were asked and Karel responded that there has been a review of the placement of playing fields and a future building at the Lions Club Property. Carter presented the plat, explaining that the design allows for the work to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other. He added that the design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build-out plan. Initially, drainage will be installed for the whole property. Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low. ABC Chair, Jean Beadle stated that they have recommended completing a quarterly budget review in order identify if department’s are within their budgeted amount.
The above is from the 2/9/09 Board of Selectmen’s meeting minutes. Funny how things have changed a bit since then. What statistics are there to back up the statement made by former School Board Member/Chair, Laurie Whitley, that the ‘fields at the at the Academy and Central School are over utilized’? How is it possible to over ‘utilize’ a field? What does that mean? Too many people on the field at the same time? People lining up to use the fields? Over scheduling or conflicting schedules? How do any of the above warrant building another field?
I wonder if the statement that 67% of all students are involved in athletics’ is still true. Show me the numbers. No one has ever come forth with the numbers. It’s always statements such as ‘more than just the children are using the fields and the demand is increasing’, according to Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. What does that mean? How many? When? How often? What were they doing? What time of year?
Let’s look further into these minutes. Carter explained the design for the Lion’s Club property is‘to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other’. Really? ‘The design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build out plan’. I wonder how that changed to a 3 phase plan to start by 4/1/10, with the drainage and clearing of trees for all 3 phases to begin immediately. Where was I when this was announced?
How many times has the Town Administrator been asked about ‘staff meetings’ and where the minutes were for those meetings this last year? The citizens of Moultonboro are not dumb. While many people don’t care or pay attention to the activities of the government of our town, which is typical across the country, many do. Many pay attention to and follow what goes on at all the board and committee meetings. So do I. But it is apparent that our Town Administrator has little regard for the ‘frequent flyers’ as he condescendingly refers to the folks that regularly attend BoS meetings.
I am appalled at the activities of our Town Administrator and the actions that he has taken in so many meetings held under the guise of staff meetings.
According to the minutes of 2/09/09, there were many concerns about proceeding ahead with the Lion’s Club project.
Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his
concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low.
Where did Carter learn mathmatics. ‘The discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears’. I don’t get it. Numbers are what numbers are. We are talking dollars here, not some twisted statistics to prove something one way or the other. Or are we?
A few notes from 1/108 BoS meeting discussing the RSPC proposal for a community center:
He [Joel] feels that the project should be put off for a few years until the
state educational funding question is resolved. Joel suggested putting money in the
Gee, do you think? Why then are we less than a year later, proposing the same thing, only in a bigger hurry? What is going on here folks? Someone, somewhere is pushing harder and harder to get something going on the Lion’s Club property. But, why? Well, here’s a thought: once we get a ‘soccer field’ built, why not build something else? Like a Community Center? After all, there’s so much space there, right? How ‘bout 237 parking spaces for all the programs that will be conducted in that building? Human Services will be in there, too. Oh really? Since when? Who decided that and when? Was that in another staff meeting of which there are no minutes?
Goodness, folks, this is a bit too much for me to digest all at once. I’m overwhelmed by the magnitude of the arrogance that I am too ignorant to care as an ordinary citizen or an abutter to the Lion’s Club property to see that there are those with an agenda pushing forth to build something, anything on that land and as fast as possible.
I have personal reasons for not wanting anything built there, as an abutter, but the more that we see in writing and in conceptual ideas, and the more we hear of the history, the wetlands, wildlife, environmental concerns, the angrier I get.
I have nothing against a soccer field, but I believe it should be built in 1) a central location, which the Lion’s Club is not, 2) where the kids are, which the Lion’s Club is not, 3) not on a wetland, which the Lion’s Club is!! Has anyone consulted with the Town Planner on this project? Anyone at all?
Let’s take a closer look at the entire ‘concept’ here. Let’s suppose it was determined that there is a real need for an additional all purpose ball field. What would the criteria be for choosing a location? Here’s a few that come to my mind, and I will admit that I have no training in town planning or civil engineering:1)High, dry land; 2) Central location and close to existing parking; 3) the least expensive land in clearing or developing a field. So, do any of those fit the Lion’s Club property? Uh, no.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, kids used to walk, bike and run all over the place. In this day and age, they don’t. They are driven or bussed to and from school, activities, etc. The proposed ‘safe routes to school’ doesn’t work for me either. This is a plan that was developed as a way to convince people that the Lion’s Club property is the perfect place for a ball field. I can tell you from my own observations driving passed the school, the high volume of personal vehicles driven by parents to bring their kids to school. No one walks to school. My neighbors drive their kids, and they live less than a mile away.
In my opinion, there are so many fingers in the pie. It’s hard to find out how this entire ‘conceptual plan’ came into existence. Nowhere can I find meeting minutes that have discussed these plans before the public. From the 9/17/09 BoS meeting, Karel summarized the costs for the Town engineers design for the ‘Recreational fields at the Lion’s Club property’ at $54,740. Gee, nothing like spending a good portion of the $300,000 approved for the construction of a new field and the repair of Playground Drive field, to come up with plans that the Planning Board have found unacceptable and of poor quality, looking as if they were thrown together at the last minute.
Here we are at the end of March 2010, and plans were discussed since Sept 09, and poor quality plans referred to as ‘conceptual plans’ are the best the Town Administrator and Town engineer have come up with? Gee, folks. This only cost us $54k! Let’s send them back to the coloring books for another $1500!!
Where does this madness stop?
I would, however, like to give kudos the the Board of Selectmen and the new Chair for questioning these 'conceptual plans' and sending them back to come up with plans that: 1) make sense; (I don't care how many times!) 2) that will be put forth in a public hearing! Finally!! Someone might actually be listening to the town's people and especially the abutters!
Maybe there is hope after all!
Linda N. Punturieri
Abutter
This is the weekly update sent out to subscribers from the Town of Meredith. Granted, it is from the desk of the Town Manager, but let’s face it folks, we have a de facto Town Manager in our very own Town Administrator. Or so it would seem, as he acts on his on accord for many different issues, agendas and even ordinances. Why, then, would it be asking too much for an informative weekly update that highlights the many goings on in our town, without forcing citizens to search the town webpage? The town calendar is not all inclusive, nor is it enough to decipher any real information. How ‘bout it folks? Let’s ask our town for more!
Town Manager’s Weekly Message
Keeping you informed about what’s happening in the Town of Meredith
This message is updated each Friday to keep residents informed about town issues and activities.
September 23, 2009
UPCOMING EVENTS IN MEREDITH:
Infrastructure Improvements Project Construction Notice
Sewer repair and road improvement work on Main Street between Waukewan St. and Lake St. began on August 31st. Trench paving is now taking place. Weather permitting, work may be completed by October 2nd however, that date is subject to change.
The roadway will be open to local traffic only from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; however access to sidewalks will be maintained. Traffic coming from the center of town will be diverted to Lake St. onto Route 3. Traffic coming toward the center of town from the intersection of Waukewan and Main St. will be diverted onto Mill St. then to Route 3. Although every effort will be made to maintain water and sewer service, temporary interruption of service could occur. NO OVERNIGHT PARKING WILL BE PERMITTED ON MAIN ST. FROM THE HUMISTON SCHOOL BUILDING TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
For more information contact Jerry Cedrone, Resident Engineer, KV Partners, LLC at 496-1282 or the Town of Meredith Water & Sewer Department at 279-3046. You can also click the links below to view the full construction notice and work detour map.
- H1N1 SWINE FLU INFORMATION –
The MCA is pleased to publish this article, not to bemoan our selectmen, but rather to point out serious violations involving the Right to Know Law. This is an oft misunderstood and easily ignored law. However, when repeated articles are posted on our and other websites regarding the selectmen’s history of conducting business outside of the public’s presence, it is hard to tolerate continued defiance of the public’s right to know. We hate to see things go so far as a lawsuit, but unfortunately, change comes about when and only someone is willing to file such a suit.
It is our sincere hope that the selectmen will understand the error of their ways, and frankly those of our town manager, and conduct their business in public sessions. According to RSA 91, non public sessions are very specific about what can and cannot be discussed. We also suggest that our town officials learn and truly understand this law thoroughly. It is complex, but worth knowing.
www.citizen.com September 14, 2009
A Moultonborough resident's right-to-know lawsuit against the town, claiming selectmen met illegally in a nonpublic session on an unannounced date to discuss, plan and coordinate the process it would use to hire a new police chief, may have been stalled because of a failure to deliver copies of the legal documents to town officials.
Petitioner Paul Punterieri of 22 Nelson Road said last Wednesday that he called the Carroll County Sheriff's Office and discovered that the petition had never been delivered — or served — on the town. He was told the paperwork would be served in the next several days, most likely resulting in a new date for the hearing being set.
A scheduling notice in the court file notes that Punterieri "shall serve the petition upon the town" and that failure to do so may result in the action being discontinued without further notice.
Punterieri filed his petition in Carroll County Superior Court in Ossipee on Aug. 27 and a court hearing was scheduled for this Tuesday.
The suit names Selectmen Karel Crawford, chair, Ed Charest, Jim Gray, Joel Mudgett and Betsey Patten as respondents. It also names Town Administrator Carter Terenzini.
Terenzini said last Wednesday he has not been served with the suit and could not comment on anything regarding pending litigation.
Terenzini also declined to comment on whether the suit has stalled efforts to hire a new chief or the status of the search process.
Punterieri argues that any and all discussion of how Police Chief Scott Kinmond's successor would be named, if and how a search/screening committee would be formed, and who would be appointed should have occurred in public session.
Kinmond, the town's current chief who has served for 24 years, is retiring from that post and will become the town's road agent.
"The plaintiff is contesting that the decision to appoint a committee (or accept volunteers), the membership of that committee and the process leading up to the interviews violates RSA 91-A as they were never held in public session," the suit states.
In the suit, Punterieri argues that the town set precedent when it filled two key positions — the first-ever town planner and a town engineer — by hiring them in full public session. He maintains that a similar process should have been following for naming a new police chief.
Volunteers who have agreed to serve on a committee looking for a new chief, according to minutes of the committee's work, are Belknap County High Sheriff Craig Wiggin, Merrimack County High Sheriff Scott Hilliard, Auburn Chief of Police Ed Picard, Moultonborough citizen Peter Whelley, and Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner.
Editor, The Citizen:
The Right to Know law is as vast as it is sometimes confusing. The NH Bar Assoc. states the "purpose of New Hampshire's Right to Know Law (RSA 91-A) is to make state and local government accountable to the people by requiring that meetings and records be open to the public as much as possible." Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution is the impetus for this oft misunderstood and sometimes pesky law. It states that "All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and AT ALL TIMES accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted".
With this fairly simple but comprehensive language those who would be the "people" and those who would be their "substitutes and agents," from time to time, find themselves at opposite ends of the table. What constitutes a public meeting … what notes or records need to be kept and made available … what is fair notification of meetings ... and what about emails, letters, and telephone conference calls?
All these topics will be the subject for a Right to Know Seminar coming your way on August 10th (7 PM) at the Moultonborough Public Library. Sponsored by the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance, both the public and members of the various boards of area towns are invited. Ed Naile of the Coalition of NH Taxpayers, Tom Tardif, former mayor of Laconia, and Doug Lambert of GraniteGrok.com, all knowledgeable RTK experts, will be there to explain the "ins" and "outs" of this ubiquitous statute and field a Q & A session.
Bravo and kudos to the MCA for reaching out to both the public and their "substitutes and agents" to for a great opportunity to end up on the same page. The good folks who serve on the boards and the volunteers for committees who have to deal with this law on a daily basis should embrace this effort as a learning event to make their job a bit easier. What a great opportunity for all sides to learn, discuss and educate … all at the same time. I would encourage all to attend.
Now I know that at least some of you will consult the Web to see what Article 8 of the NH Constitution says and check this humble scribe's accuracy. While you are there, jump down a couple articles and take a look at my personal favorite… Article 10. You won't find that in any other state constitution!!
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
June 4, 2009
Editorial
Everything about public meetings should be made as public-friendly as possible. That means posting agendas online (consistently, and as far in advance as possible, please), holding non-public sessions at the end of meetings whenever humanly possible, and allowing the public the most convenient method for making comments about town affairs. Recentdecisions and conversations of various local boards and committees have stirred up some controversy regarding how public comments should be handled at public meetings. In Sanbornton selectmen had to reprioritize after backlash from residents about moving public input sessions to the end of meetings. The move angered some,who said the change was an attempt to keep them from being heard, specifically because Sanbornton’s meetings can run late. Ultimately, the board put the sessions back to the beginning of each meeting, which we think was the right thing to do.
Moultonboro changed its policy recently as well, also drawing fire from the town’s more vocal citizens. Instead of allowing residents to comment and ask questions as the meeting progressed, it restricts public input to the beginning and end of each selectmen’s meeting. It might be more conducive to informed input if the board would consider handing out packets of information prior to the meeting. It’s difficult for members of the public to do more than ask questions to figure out what the issue is – and after the vote is cast and the decision made, everyone just wants to go home. It’s unlikely that a vote would be changed, once cast, as the selectmen have suggested they could do if swayed by public input. In its organizational meeting just last week, the Gilford Budget Committee discussed the issue, trying to decide where to place public input on the agenda so residents would have a fair shot to voice concerns or make comments at a relevant time. They, respectably, want to ensure that the public can talk freely before a vote, but perhaps after committee discussion so the speakers are informed. Also making an effort to respect the public, the Tilton Board of Selectmen just started holding a public input session at its meetings. Often there is no input, but occasionally the opening has given interested residents a chance to speak informally without having to make an appointment. It hasn’t appeared to slow the board down in terms of getting things done, and citizens have peace of mind that, should they ever want to throw out a comment or raise a concern, they will have the opportunity and ability to do so. Boards and committees are meant to be working for the residents of a town, so it doesn’t make sense to us when they make residents jump over hurdles to get a chance to speak (or get a hold of an agenda or meeting minutes, for that matter). We understand that they need to get things done, and that sometimes public comments sessions can get out of hand in terms of length or topic, but the board does have the ability to limit speaking time, or to offer a timeslot on the agenda should the topic warrant one.
Editorial
Friday, May 1, 2009
The law applies to everyone — except the lawmakers.
The people who enact laws can, if they choose, exempt themselves. They travel our highways at speeds that would earn we more common folk a summons to appear in court. While the rest of us are using E-ZPass or paying cash at the state’s toll booths, lawmakers pass through at no cost.
Now they want e-mail exchanges with constituents to be privileged information, an exception to the Right to Know law, a law so many people worked so hard to design and implement.
The history of Chapter 91-A of New Hampshire’s Revised Statutes Annotated has been a half-century struggle, two steps forward and one step back. Its beginnings were landed in the altogether logical beliefs and contentions that the people were the final governing authority, and for them to govern effectively, they must be exposed to and have access to the same information to which their elected representatives might be entitled.
There are exceptions to the Right to Know law crafted to protect the interests of the people. Among them is information pertaining to law enforcement investigations, the negotiation of contracts and the pursuit of decisions at law having an affect on the people and their interests.
The broad technological change that resonated through the late 20th century and into the 21st saw giant leaps in communication, not the least of which has been electronic mail transmission — e-mail.
The value of e-mail cannot be overstated. Where once the written word took days to get from sender to recipient, today it travels in seconds.
E-mail has become a useful tool in the execution of government. It is a supplement to traditional methods of exchange or the sometimes misunderstood implications or inferences in telephone conversation.
Transparency is the word that has been coined to describe the need to let the people look through government’s many windows and into its sometimes shadowy corners. Right to know is the term that still best applies. It clearly describes in three words the entire principle and its parts.
State lawmakers — the step they want to take is to exempt from disclosure e-mail communication between themselves and constituents.
The Senate’s committee on Election Law and Veterans Affairs met this week, but took no action on HB 349, which would write the exception into law. Earlier, the measure sailed through the House.
The substance of the bill is to allow lawmakers to decide which electronic communications from constituents would be subject to the Right to Know law. Those feathers you might soon see will be the ones caused by the fox entering the chicken coop.
Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, had this to say about e-mail communication between lawmakers and constituents: “It’s not a public conversation, and it should not be a public record.”
One more barricade between lawmakers and the people as a whole.
The attitude in
There are people in the Legislature who are uncomfortable with codification of the public’s right to know. We are uncomfortable with it at times ourselves — when lawmakers try and sometimes succeed in building a wall between themselves and the people of
It is as if a right to know applies only when they meet as a body while, even then, allowing them to decide what moment qualifies.
Public trust deserves something better.
