Transparency: News Miner 70
Legislative transparency, Casa Bonita, college debt, subsidized college, Islamic State, and more.
If you value this work, please tell a friend about it and consider becoming a paid subscriber (if you are not one already). Thank you for reading.
Transparency at the Legislature
Terrance Carroll, former speaker of the Colorado House, has some good comments about the lawsuit trying to force greater legislative transparency. He summarizes:
Representatives Elisabeth Epps (D-Denver) and Bob Marshall (D-Highlands Ranch) . . . allege the caucus meetings violated the law because they were held without any public notice; deliberately concealed those meetings from the public; and members conducted legislative business using encrypted group texts.
But this is not as straightforward a problem as some suppose, he suggests. He offers some helpful background:
In 1972, the Colorado open meeting law was adopted as an initiated statute. The statute affirmatively declares “the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.” . . .
However, with any legislation or statute, there are unintended consequences and unanswered questions. The primary unanswered question has always been how much access should the public have to legislative caucus meetings, which are nominally not an official policy-making body.
The Colorado Supreme Court has specifically addressed this difficult question on one occasion. In 1973, former state Senator Ralph Cole asked the court to clarify the reach of Colorado’s, then-new law and to declare that it does not apply to legislative caucus meetings. Cole argued Article V of the Colorado Constitution permitted the General Assembly to hold secret meetings when necessary. In 1983, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected Cole’s argument by ruling that caucus meetings are “a ‘de-facto’ policy-making body which formulates legislative policy that is of governing importance to the citizens of this state.”
It seems to me that no one has seriously grappled with the First Amendment implications of the transparency laws. Yes, “we” properly may regulate official government meetings where public officials vote on measures. But what about outside that context? People don’t lose their right to freedom of speech just because they become an elected official. So how much may government morally and Constitutionally restrict the speech of elected officials when they are not participating in official government meetings? The answer certainly isn’t obvious to me, but I’m very nervous about any such intrusion.
Are we going to say that an elected official may not discuss anything even tangentially related to relevant government policy, with anyone, at any time, unless the discussion is publicly transmitted? That would be absurd. That would extend even to “pillow talk” between a legislator and a spouse. No one thinks that extreme level of transparency is warranted. So, unless we restrict transparency laws to official government meetings, where policy actually is enacted, we are talking about drawing lines in the sand somewhere, and these lines necessarily will be largely arbitrary.
What if two legislators privately discuss policy direction for the coming season? Three? Ten? Where is the line? A party caucus may not implement policy; it can only discuss it. (However, the Republican Party in Colorado has imploded to such a degree that the Democratic Party effectively constitutes the state government.)
Bluntly, when do transparency laws become censorship, and why does no one seem interested in that problem? A law that promises transparency but delivers silence seems like maybe it’s not such a great idea.
I’ll point out here that legislators could strive for and advocate reasonable transparency outside the context of official government meetings even if transparency laws did not apply. For example, party caucuses could agree to make all their meetings public. Just because something’s a good idea doesn’t mean there has to be a law enforcing it.
In related news . . . Jeffrey Roberts writes:
Colorado should enact legislation like a 2021 Michigan statute that outlaws the use of disappearing messaging apps in state government, but the language should be broadened to affect all state and local officials, a law student’s report prepared for the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition recommends.
Quick Takes
Casa Bonita: This headline reads like it should be from a story of a hostage situation: “Casa Bonita employees release list of demands.” Axios discusses the matter and helpfully links to the source document, which really does talk about “demands.” How about strongly-worded requests? Any such “demand” should be recognized to be purely conditional: Meet the “demands” or we quit. One of the demands is to reinstate tipping. By way of background, the restaurant dropped tips, but (Axios says), “The restaurant is now offering a $30 hourly rate to servers and bartenders, but neither will receive tips as part of their wages.” That’s . . . pretty good, right? People who think that’s not enough money are free not to work there. Krista Kafer also has a few thoughts about tipping.
College Debt: Secretary of State Jena Griswold complains, “I have over $200k of education debt because I grew up poor and believed in the American Dream. This country profits from selling poor kids high interest rate edu loans.” See the related Colorado Politics article. Krista Kafer replied, “Many of us who grew up with modest means worked full time while in college, chose affordable institutions, and paid back our debts.” Griswold attended Whitman College and the Watson Pennsylvania Law School, both very expensive schools.
̶F̶r̶e̶e̶ Tax-Subsidized College: CPR: “Colorado has such dire workforce shortages in early childhood education, education, firefighting, law enforcement, construction and forestry that if you want a job in those fields, the state will pay for your college education to get a job.” This pertains to community and technical colleges.
Denver Vandals: Post: “Nearly half of the city’s public restrooms are inoperable due to vandalism.”
Barbie: The doll was created in Colorado. Krista Kafer hated the movie. Tyler Cowen enjoyed it.
Islamic State: A young Coloradan allegedly tried to join Islamic State. His mother says the FBI put him up to it. The person in question obviously has serious mental health issues. Maybe the government could have found a better way to “help” the person other than to actively set him up with a terrorist organization?