Catching up, welcoming more sunshine

So I'm back from a 4-day weekend. I'll pause briefly for the applause to die down. No, really, I was gone.

I see our Iowa Senate has sent Gov. Terry Branstad that bill I wrote of last week creating a state panel to investigate potential open meetings and records violations, and hand out penalties. The bill's sixth legislative session was apparently the charm. It cleared the Democratically controlled Senate 49-0 after passing the Republican-led House 92-7 last week.

I see in the Register of Des Moines that the Iowa League of Cities, who fought hard against more openness with the help of dues paid with your taxes, had to get in a last parting shot:

Larry Pope of the Iowa League of Cities argued that the bill is unnecessary since the state's ombudsman and attorney general are already charged with some responsibility in enforcing current law.

“We think the enforcement provisions will lead to more contested cases, and both cities and towns are at more risk of protracted litigation and fines,” he said.

The ombudsman has no power to level penalties. And the attorney general's office has been far too busy pursuing high-profile cases of national importance to piddle around with some local school board or city council playing secret agent. Local prosecutors are even less interested. So basically, we had a virtual enforcement free zone, which is exactly what the league wanted to sustain.

But Pope is right. Now, someone will investigate, and some local officials will face penalties. Enforcing the law. What a concept. Like they say about the traffic cameras, follow the law and you've got nothing to worry about.

Still, the bill has flaws. The new panel can't investigate the Legislature, governor's office or courts. Shocking, I know. And the House added language apparently seeking to shield preliminary draft documents from open records laws. And the added language is somewhat confounding:

"Tentative, preliminary, draft, speculative, or research material, prior to its completion for the purpose for which it is intended and in a form prior to the form in which it is submitted for use or used in the actual formulation, recommendation, adoption, or execution of any official policy or action by a public official authorized to make such decisions for the governmental body or the  government body. This subsection shall not apply to public records that are actually submitted for use or are used in the formulation, recommendation, adoption, or execution of any official policy or action of a governmental body or a government body by a public official authorized to adopt or execute official policy for the governmental body or the government body."

Seems like it's designed to shield pre-draft drafts that have not been drafted for official use by any official decision-makers. Odd.

I guess the fighting point would be the definition of "submitted for use." If some city council members merely have a look-see at some speculative planning documents, is that "submitted?" Or does there have to be some sort of formal submission ceremony, with a ribbon cutting and a sheet cake? Not sure. Could be an unimportant technicality. But I detect subtle a hint of mendacity.

But the good in the bill outweighs the bad. So welcome news.