House approved open meetings-open records changes

DES MOINES - A lawmaker floor managing an update to Iowa 30-year-old open meetings-open records laws admits that it won't make everyone happy.

"And I think it shouldn't," Rep. Vicki Lensing, D-Iowa City, admitted before the House passed House File 777 97-0 Thursday. It's the result of a multi-year effort that has included several lengthy subcommittee meetings with various parties to get the bill to the floor.

Critics say the bill doesn't go far enough to ensure the public has access to its government records and meetings. While it probably does no harm, they worry that if lawmakers pass an incomplete update of the open meetings-open records laws this year they may wait another 30 years before completing the work that's needed.

Lensing doesn't think so. She calls HF 777 a first step, pointing out the advisory panel it creates will make recommendations to the Legislature on those issues the bill doesn't address.

Among the criticism of the bill is that enforcement of the open meetings-open records laws is left up to the attorney general and county attorneys, who they say, have not been enthusiastic in their enforcement.

Creating a stronger enforcement mechanism wasn't possible this year because of the state's budget situation, Lensing said. That's not a reason to delay clarifying the law.

"Some of these policies need to be updated and changed and we've tried to address that," she said. "There's no guarantee the budget will be better next year or the year after. So I think waiting would not be helpful to anyone."

She hopes the citizen advisory committee will look at several issues, such as serial meetings or "walking quorums" that circumvent the intent of the open meetings law. Another issue for the panel is property owners being shut out of meetings where the government determines what to pay them for land it is seizing through eminent domain. On Lensing's recommendation, Democrats rejected an amendment to open that process to property owners.

The bill may not be the "end all, but it gets us forward in terms of letting the public get to meetings, get to records and understand how government functions," he said. "So I think doing nothing would be a mistake."

The bill calls for mandatory training for government agencies each year and for education for the public so people understand their access to government meetings and records.

One weakness of the bill, according to Rep. Scott Raecker, R-Urbandale, is HF 777 doesn't impose the same level of openness on the Legislature as it requires of other levels of government.

"While this is a great start, moving us in the right direction I would encourage us, as we continue down this road of openness and transparency, that we should examine ourselves," Raecker says. 

It's necessary for legislators to be able to meet without the public present to craft legislation, House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said, when asked about a bill that changes the restriction on sex offenders. Although that bill was developed by a bipartisan panel of legislators during meetings closed to the public, Murphy said, "We're not going to do anything in secret."

In other action Thursday, the House:

Rejected on a voice vote changes the Senate made to HF 671, a bill to protect the jobs of emergency medical personnel. The Senate had added amendments relating to gubernatorial appointments and creating new taxing districts. If the Senate insists on its version of the bill it will go to a conference committee. If not, it will go to the governor.

Voted 95-0 to approve HF 815, which establishes an agreement between community colleges and regents universities regarding the course-to-course transfer of credits. It also calls for the universities to develop bachelor of applied science programs in technical fields.

Approved SF 451 that requires regents universities and community colleges to adopt rules to treat veterans from other states, as well as their spouses and children, as residents for the purpose of in-state tuition. In doing so, the House rejected an attempt to limit that to veterans only if their home state charged Iowa veterans in-state tuition.