7/1/99
mbrown@agate.net
Strange and some say reckless things happen in the final hours of legislative sessions. The first session of the 119th Legislature didn't disappoint viewers of political alchemism watching the steaming brew kettle.
One of the events concerned the House Republican caucus. It voted to close the caucus throw out a reporter and conduct the people's business in secret. The issue was the debate of "Meals for Wheels" bill which ultimately was the only veto (Senate 21-7 and House 107-38) of Gov. King's 22 vetoes.
House GOP Leader Tom Murphy attempted to keep his caucus together in a clean veto sweep but some rank and filers were balking especially after the Social Security tax fiasco. Refusing to discuss their reasons in public with the press present, one member, Rep. John Buck R-Yarmouth, called for a vote to expel the press. Shamefully the motion was supported.
The closing of caucuses hinges not on law or rule but an old opinion by then Assistant Attorney General Cabanne Howard who has left state service. The opinion was requested by this member of the press (who had been ejected from a GOP Senate caucus) through then Sen. Charles Begley, R-Waldoboro.
Howard's opinion was that a caucus was exempt from the statutes of the Freedom of Access law.
What Howard's opinion said, in essence, was that a called meeting of state employees (legislators) on state salaries, meeting in state buildings, using state equipment supported by state employee staffs deliberating public business could be held in secret behind closed doors.
That opinion is relied upon to this day when debated caucus opinions rise. Legislators, media and just about everyone else around the State House knows why caucuses are held and that is to take unrecorded votes and corral opinions before the members march to their respective Houses and officially vote on issues.
Sometimes, and more often in the smaller Senate caucuses, and more often in Senate GOP caucuses, they are held behind closed doors in leadership offices with no official notice of the caucus.
There are several points to be made concerning closed caucuses. The first is that the law, Freedom of Access, states unequivocally, that: "the legislature finds and declares that public proceedings exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the Legislature that their actions be taken openly..."
Political caucuses are not mentioned as an exemption in the FOA law. Howard's opinion suggests that caucuses and their direct application to deliberation of impending bills are not public proceedings.
And since the writing and enactment of the FOA law in 1975, no legislator especially leadership, has filed a bill to include caucuses as public proceedings in the FOA statute.
The closing of caucuses has relation to the FOA law which is being ignored consistently by state government, especially the King Administration. On May 28, 1998, I requested certain public information from the governor's office on charter flights by King and his office personnel.
King's then assistant counsel, Yellow Light Breen, refused saying, "You should understand that your insistence on making inquiries by use of the Freedom of Access requests may not be the most efficient way for us to identify and provide you with the information that will meet your needs."
Breen suggested rather that I attempt to get the information through King's flack, Dennis Bailey.
It took ten weeks and the intervention of AG Drew Ketterer before I received that information. The same request was made of DOT Commissioner John Melrose. I have yet to get a response from Melrose. Further requests for material from the Bureau of Budget was available but only through the King's office and Dennis Bailey.
It's obvious that secrecy in government does exist in Maine. Attempts to change the FOA law have been weak, unsupported and usually defeated. The Maine Press Assn. has a highly paid lobbyist (Gordon Scott of Eaton, Peabody, Bradford et al at $5,000 annual retainer) who could be called less than aggressive on FOA matters.
The law provides appeals for alleged violations of the FOA statute. The remedy is Superior Court. Who among the lesser robust financial limbs on the journalism tree can afford Superior Court?
The people's business should free and open government.
What's Your View?
Start or join a discussion on The Liars' Bench or email us