Editorial -- Freeman Courier

Bipartisan interest in opening government holds real promise

When we became the United States, the founders of this republic determined
the ultimate power of government should be in the hands of the people. For
230 years we have functioned as a government "of the people, by the people
and for the people."
This notion of "the power of the people" is reflected in South Dakota's
state motto: "Under God the people rule." Yet South Dakota has one of the -
if not the - weakest open record laws in the nation.
But now there is unprecedented hope that could change. There are two bills
before the 2008 South Dakota Legislature, both of which attempt to open
government records that are now cloaked in layers of statute that either
restrict or prevent public access. And the effort is bipartisan.
SB186 comes from the Republican Party whose 18 sponsors include GOP leaders
Sen. David Knudson, R-Sioux Falls and Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center. It
expands the definition of open records and lists specific exceptions that
address privacy concerns.
SB189, which comes from Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown, has 15
sponsors from both parties. It begins with the presumption that government
records are open. Only those records for which specific and compelling
arguments can be made for limited access are closed to the public. It allows
for an injunction so a court could rule whether opening a specific record
would substantially and irreparably injure a person.
Turbak Berry emerged as a strong voice for public access to government
records last session and SB189 is the stronger measure. It best reflects the
principle under which we are to function as a government where people indeed
do rule. It is a measure that the citizens of South Dakota deserve because
it starts from the position of openness.
But political realities in the current legislature and the current
administration pose a significant challenge to SB189. Given the fact that
the GOP is the majority party in both houses, it appears SB186 will have the
best chance of passage.
Knudson and Rhoden deserve credit for seeking to strengthen open government
in South Dakota, particularly given the fact their party leader, Gov. Mike
Rounds, doesn't share their perspective on the issue. On the contrary, it
appears Rounds fails to understand the importance of the concept of open
government.
In an interview with South Dakota Public Radio several weeks ago Rounds said
"I'd prefer to say that the information that is required to be kept by
government is open unless it is specifically closed. All of the other
information which is kept in either a compilation form or is simply acquired
for decision-making processes, but is not required to be kept, I don't think
should be open - unless the person can show us a need to know it ... If
there are issues out there that people truly want to know then come in and
tell us."
Round's approach - "come talk to us and tell us if there's a problem" -
reflects a business approach to government. The problem is that Rounds
ignores the fact that the "business owners" in this case are the people.
During a panel discussion sponsored by the South Dakota Newspaper
Association in Pierre last week, Turbak Berry said her approach "challenges
government to share in a more open approach" to records. "I wish the efforts
would be directed at challenging the governor to share in a more open
approach."
In that same discussion, Knudson said what is important "is the size of the
box of open records, and just because you start with a presumption of
openness and then start laundry-listing (exceptions) doesn't mean the box is
bigger."
While that point might be debated, it appears there is genuine support for
expanding citizens' access to government on both sides of the aisle. Knudson
said he is "deeply committed" to passing an open-records bill that can pass
in both houses and be signed by the governor.
The upcoming days and weeks are critical as legislators debate SB186 and
SB189 and seek to strengthen the proposals to ensure improved public access
to government. The opportunities for progress are unprecedented and
lawmakers need to seize it.
"I think our biggest fear is that, in the end, we don't pass anything,"
Knudson said last week. "That would be the greatest failure of all."
It would indeed.

The Freeman Courier editorials reflect the opinion of Courier news editor
Jeremy Waltner and Courier publisher Tim L. Waltner

Editorial -- Rapid City Journal

South Dakota, the closed-records state, is now working on becoming the closed-meetings state.
In Pierre yesterday, the state Senate's local government committee sent a bill to the full Senate that would allow elected officials from one public board to attend the meeting of another government entity, without giving the public notice beforehand.
The state's open meetings law requires that state and local boards, commissions and other agencies must give public notice 24 hours before holding a meeting. But SB199, if passed, would approve a big loophole to that law by stating that the "guest" entity does not have to adhere to the open meetings requirement.
Specifically, the public meeting law would be amended to say:
"It does not constitute an official meeting if members of a political subdivision of this state are attending a meeting of the state or one of its political subdivisions, a board, a commission, an association, an agency, or any other public entity for which public notice is provided pursuant to 1-25-1.1 for the purpose of providing information or observing, and the notice requirements in 1-25-1.1 do not apply."
SB199 stems from a Grant County open meetings violation in which a township board met with the Grant County Commission without posting an agenda prior to that meeting.
The township was reprimanded for that violation, but SB199 would make it legal for some elected officials to keep at least some of their dealings with other elected bodies unknown to their constituents until after the fact.
As we see it, the change would permit two school boards to meet to discuss anything from consolidation plans to sharing classes or sports programs without giving the people of at least one of those school districts notice of the meeting.
It means two city councils or two county commissions could discuss anything from purchases to tax policy without informing at least some of the taxpayers they represent.
This bill puts the convenience of governing boards above the interests of citizens who want to participate in government. The group of lawmakers that introduced this bill includes Rapid City legislators Dennis Schmidt, Mark Kirkeby and Jeff Haverly. We think it could have unintended consequences and we hope the full Senate recognizes it as the flawed legislation that it is.

Guest Column -- Watertown Public Opinion

Nancy Turbak Berry
Guest Columnist
Watertown Public Opinion

I¹ve always taken this democracy stuff pretty seriously. Years ago, when
we¹d gather around the flagpole at school and recite a pledge that promised
liberty and justice for all,  I took it to heart. Now my life work is spent
trying to be sure that promise is kept.
Later, when I learned that Revolutionary War soldiers fought without decent
guns or even shoes, I was awed by their commitment to democracy. By the time
I learned the Gettysburg Address, I was hooked. How could there be anything
better than ³government of the people, by the people, and for the people²?
Now, as a legislator, I¹m determined to have government honor that
commitment.
Especially in South Dakota, we tend to just trust the government. After all,
whether it¹s elected officials or full time employees, we know these people.
They¹re our neighbors, our cousins, our friends. At the least, they seem a
lot like us.  So why worry about ³open government²?
It¹s easy to see the challenge to democratic principles when military
leaders from Iraq or Pakistan forcibly occupy those countries¹ governments.
With no one in uniform about to take over our state or nation, though, we
get complacent. Democracy depends on participation, not complacency, and
participation isn¹t very meaningful if it isn¹t informed.
Thomas Jefferson said, ³Information is the currency of democracy.² There are
ways to allow access to that currency while protecting the privacy of
individuals, security of institutions, and efficiency of government (to the
extent government can be efficient). Items held back from the public ought
to be the exception, not the rule. The presumption should be that unless
government can point to a good reason for keeping something secret, it
should be open. 
The other day, as I sat outside the South Dakota Senate chambers, a
delightful little lady joined me. Her accent was enchanting as she talked
about living under Hitler and spending years under the Soviets. Our
conversation wove through many topics. We did not agree on all of them. But
when we got to the subject of open government, she implored me to never give
up. 
According to Jefferson, experience has shown that even under the best forms
of government, those entrusted with power will slowly, bit by bit, pervert
it into tyranny. I believe Jefferson was right. Even here in friendly,
decent South Dakota, those with knowledge and power often would rather not
share it. They seem to forget that government belongs to the people, not to
those who happen to occupy a government office, however big or small, at any
given time.
The Declaration of Independence may say it is ³self-evident² that the only
just government is one that derives its power from the consent of the
governed, but it took a lot of frozen, bloody feet to establish that
reality. The least we can do is protect it.

Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry represents District 5. She serves on Judiciary,
Commerce, and Taxation Committees and on the Attorney General¹s Task Force
on Open Government. She also is the prime sponsor of SB189, a bill to create
a presumption of openness in South Dakota.

Jon Hunter Editorial -- Madison Daily Leader

Two bills have been introduced in the South Dakota Legislature this session concerning open government. The prime sponsor of SB 186 is Republican Dave Knudson, while the prime sponsor of SB 189 is Democrat Nancy Turbak Berry. We're pleased that both parties have taken an interest in open government, spurred perhaps by the initiative taken by Attorney General Larry Long, who established a task force to forward the issue.

Even though both bills promote more accessibility to records in both state and local governments, there are differences. The Republican bill, in general, tries to better define which records should be open and which should be closed. One of the challenges of the current law is that the status of many records isn't clear, and the tendency of most government officials is to keep records closed. SB 186 also includes a number of recommendations from the Attorney General's task force.

SB 189, however, starts from a different premise: that all government records shall be open, except those that are specifically defined to be closed. The bill then lists items and reasons for certain information (such as social security numbers, for identity theft reasons) that should be closed. A key element is a provision that for records that aren't clearly defined as open or closed, an injunction can be granted until the matter is cleared up.

In some ways, both bills end up near the same place. At this point, the Republican bill has the edge because Knudson has discussed it with Gov. Mike Rounds, who isn't enthused about opening up government records further.

We prefer the Democrat bill, which has a structure similar to many other states with better open records laws. We're appreciative of the work legislators and the attorney general have done, and expect that progress will be made in this session that will help South Dakotans know more about what their government is doing.

-- Jon M. Hunter / Madison Daily Leader

Korrie Wenzel Column - Mitchell Daily Republic

By Korrie Wenzel

The Daily Republic

Imagine calling a state office, seeking information. The official on the other line acknowledges that the information you want is, indeed, open to the public, but it’s too difficult and complicated to compile. He then lectures you on what he perceives as the dangers of giving out certain information.

Is that open government.

Or what if you call a state office and get routed through a series of roadblocks? Instead of getting through to the person in charge, you only speak to spokesmen. It may be days before you speak to the person you seek.

Maybe you ask to see a public record and later are followed, then harassed, by police. Or sequestered in a room for questioning.

At The Daily Republic, these things happen. They usually go unreported, and they are the hazards of the business as we pursue the news.

This week is Sunshine Week, a weeklong effort by the media to educate the public on the ills of closed government. All week, we publish Sunshine Week-based cartoons, columns and stories, hoping you’ll take notice and realize that without a fight, your world will close in on you.

Do you care?

It’s debatable.

And as we have said before on the editorial page of The Daily Republic, we feel most of you truly won’t care until it’s too late.

For each time the state Legislature votes to close its doors a little more — some lawmakers tried unsuccessfully in 2007 — in high-profile, publicized cases, there are myriad instances where the public, or the media, is turned away in attempts to gain basic public information.

For example, when The DailyRepublic a few years ago sought statistics for REDI Fund companies in the state, officials in the Governor’s Office of Economic Development swore those numbers were confidential, until the attorney general’s office persuaded them otherwise.

In 2002, when The DailyRepublic took part in a secret (and surprise) statewide audit of open records, a reporter was hauled in front of the police chief in Salem after the reporter asked to see records of crime logs and city salaries.

On the same day, a reporter who earlier had asked to see crime logs in Chamberlain was having lunch at an uptown restaurant when he was confronted by local police. An officer asked to see the reporter outside, questioned his motives and ran a check on his driver’s license.

Neither of these reporters said they were from a newspaper. They simply strolled in, posing as everyday residents, and asked to see records that are absolutely open to the public.

This is open government?

Another story: A reporter from this paper was covering an area county meeting in 2005 when the sheriff came into the room and asked to see commissioners in private. The visit was not on the agenda, nor was an executive session voted upon.

When the reporter asked the state’s attorney about the legality of the executive session, the reporter was berated with profanities.

These are good examples of how some officials in South Dakota operate. While we are assured by those in high places that our state is doing just fine with open government, people who seek public information often are harassed and delayed and must bypass roadblocks before that access is granted.

For the timid, or the people who simply don’t care to fight, real public access therefore is difficult to achieve.

So again, is this truly open government?

Try it yourself. Go to your city office and ask to see the salary of a key city employee. Or go to your police department and ask to see the crime log.

Does your school, city or county do a good job of conducting business in public? Are meetings announced and publicized, including committee meetings?

They should be.

Remember, the people still are in charge. If your elected officials try to keep you in the dark, vote them out of office. They are not elite — they are elected or hired to do a job for the people. If they have a reputation for doing things in secret or limiting public information, fire them.

Sunshine Week isn’t about media gripes; it’s about the media trying to help you realize that government cannot keep you in the dark. Newspaper editors and reporters see it all the time, and the good ones fight it.

As I sometimes tell people, it’s just business — nothing personal.

Open government isn’t just about gaining access — it’s also about being able to gain that access without fear, intimidation and roadblocks.

No matter what your leaders tell you, these roadblocks exist in South Dakota, and until they are gone, it’s impossible to say we are making headway in the quest for true open government.

Korrie Wenzel is editor of The Daily Republic in Mitchell, S.D. His e-mail is kwenzel@mitchellrepublic.com.