OUR VIEW: Open government
July 09, 2010 12:00 AM

The state's Open Meeting Law protects the principle of open government, essential for any democracy. So we looked forward to one of the changes that went into effect July 1, moving oversight and enforcement from district attorneys to the state attorney general. We hoped to see better public education about the law and more consistent enforcement.

On the former, Attorney General Martha Coakley has already made good. The website mass.gov/ago/openmeeting lists a variety of explanatory documents, most notably a new Open Meeting Law Guide written in plain language that spells out the law, exceptions to it, and how to file a complaint.

Did you know, for example, that a board can hold a closed-door session for one of 10 reasons, not just the commonly known five or six? That e-mail messages count as deliberation? Or that when entering a closed session, giving the number of the reason is not sufficient?

Elected officials often give only the number when entering a closed session, but the new guide says they must "state the reason for the executive session, stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called."

A false executive session was one of 16 violations last year by the Wareham Board of Selectmen, which at the time seemed to relish keeping its activities from public view. The office of Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz found 14 violations in the hiring of a town administrator and two related to the so-called "computer audit," which was really a witch hunt against dissent.

The board claimed it went into executive session to discuss contract negotiations. In reality, it was engaging in the interview process for the town administrator.

Coakley's guidelines appear to indicate that a board should specify which contract will be discussed in executive session, thereby giving the public a better opportunity to spot false claims. Details like that demonstrate the value of state-level oversight.

The AG's website also includes a printable complaint form with complete instructions. We commend Coakley and her staff for making this information easily accessible to the public.

Unfortunately, the Legislature's revision weakens the law in one significant respect: It introduces a new requirement of intent for the attorney general to levy the existing $1,000 fine. Intent is difficult to prove, as it should be, so the change could make public bodies more lax.

The law has other problems as well.

The fine is a slap on the wrist. New Bedford state Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral hoped to raise it as high as $5,000 or more, but he did not find enough support. Cabral also sought unsuccessfully to allow private parties who bring successful action against violators to recoup attorney's fees.

We hope he will continue to work for a better Open Meeting Law.

The law also does not hold individuals accountable, even when they violate the law intentionally and maliciously. The attorney general can levy fines only against public bodies, not individuals, which means taxpayers pay the bill every time, regardless of intent.

No one wants to condemn innocent mistakes or discourage people from running for public office, but when an official intentionally deceives the public in violation of the law, he or she should be subject to some kind of civil penalty.

A strong Open Meeting Law protects the very foundation of participatory democracy. The Massachusetts law is now more accessible, and we applaud that, but the law does not have the strength it should.