nexium prescription
November 9, 2010 by
Filed under ,
Unlike our interactions with non-public institutions, we can’t just take our money elsewhere when it comes to government, and we can’t just not care–it’s our duty to keep our elected bodies accountable.
This is why lobbying disclosure requirements for public bodies are so important. It is one thing to want to know what private interests are influencing legislation in-state and at Congress. It is quite another to know what specific legislation and programs your money is funding. The latter instance proves a more pressing need for transparency.
Many, if not most, governments attempt to influence legislation by lobbying. But the lobbying registration philosophy in some states is odd. According to the , 44 out of the 50 states have . The reasoning? Lobbying is a “natural” function of public office.
Perhaps it is. Still, lobbying by public entities remains an activity in particular that governments should be open about. Besides the fact that ailing state budgets require voters and officials to scrutinize public spending, the spirit of open government practically demands that legislation being promoted with public funds be known as such. For example, while some governments lobby for more state money, others can be lobbying to weaken state Open Meetings Act, as is .
Only one state takes transparency here seriously. The Minnesota State Auditor summarizing the . The report includes information on contract lobbyists that local entities like cities, counties, and school districts hire, but it goes one step further: it includes membership in taxpayer-funded lobbying associations in the report. These associations are funded by governments, but are generally not subject to the same open records laws that governments are.
Even then, there’s room for improvement: Minnesota does not compile information for local governments that lobby the federal government.
Governments owe it to their citizens to let us know where public funds are being used for lobbying–we should at least be allowed in the discussion. Minnesota may not be perfect, but it’s a start.
nexium prescription
May 20, 2010 by
Filed under ,
Last Tuesday, May 11, the Senate State Affairs Committee spent nearly three hours discussing how the emergence of social media has changed the way governmental bodies conduct public business.
These new tools can be used by elected officials to better communicate with constituents. But as Keith Elkins, a former Capitol reporter and now executive director of the , noted, elected officials could also use their cell phones, Blackberrys, laptops, and personal computers to communicate with one another in secrecy, outside of the state’s and the. He isn’t the first person to worry about this. Jason Stverak, president of the , worried earlier this month about the lack of archiving in new media: while public officials are more available to their constituents, the are also more available to each other through means that .
Senate State Affairs Committee chairman , R-, recommends the address how elected officials use the Internet to assure the public that no one is using the technology to or the Public Information Act. He also said public officials should not live in fear of being accused of violating the Public Meetings Act if they use electronic devices to communicate with others.
I wrote last week about the . Last year, four cities and some 20 local officials from across the state filed a federal lawsuit, supported by the Texas Municipal League, arguing that the penalties for violating the Act are harsh and unconstitutional. These penalties includ six months in jail and a fine of up to $500.
“We’ve got some good folks who are threatened with jail by innocent remarks or e-mails” said Mayor and League president Debra McCartt.
Of course, there are consequences for a law that isn’t strict. The improvements that went into effect this year have sought to remedy by setting up strict deadlines for compliance, and severe penalties for failing to do so.
It seems the answer is for Open Meetings Laws to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable, and to make clear what the exemptions to the law are. These laws need to address changing technology. It isn’t fair to officials for them to be unclear about whether their Tweet breaks the law, and it isn’t fair to citizens to be unable to access a Tweet relating to public business. Lastly, breaking the law needs to come with penalties that are strict enough to induce compliance.
Join us tomorrow on Twitter from 2-3 Eastern Standard Time to talk about Texas Open Meetings Law and open meetings laws in your state. Use hashtag #FOIAchat to talk to other transparency advocates about questions you may have or your experiences with open meetings. (If you can’t make it, our discussions are always .) For a topic schedule, look .