Amendment W fails the open government test

Posted

I am a registered lobbyist in South Dakota and I am voting no on Amendment W, the constitutional amendment purported to clean up campaign finance, lobbying and government ethics in our state.

Duh, you say. Of course a lobbyist would be opposed to Amendment W.

Hear me out. I am opposed to Amendment W for reasons you might not suspect.

 I have been a registered lobbyist for the South Dakota Newspaper Association for 23 years. (Disclosure: my opinion here regarding Amendment W is mine alone and not that of my employer. SDNA does not take official positions on ballot measures and leaves it to each member newspaper to decide if it wants to take an editorial stand on any ballot measure.)

 I have lobbied on behalf of SDNA at the state Capitol since 1996 and I can honestly say I am not aware of nor have I ever witnessed any lobbying corruption or shenanigans of the kind that Amendment W says it will “fix.”

 Two years ago, the Legislature enacted several campaign finance and lobbying measures. If those laws need to be strengthened, I fully support a debate to consider it. But Amendment W is not the way to go about it.

 It’s not so much the lobbying provisions in Amendment W that concern me, but rather it’s the fourth branch of government it creates. The “State Government Accountability Board” proposed in Amendment W would be a significant expansion of state government and, worse yet, an unchecked expansion.

 More importantly, this new government entity – touted to be a watchdog for ethics and transparency in government – does not subject itself to any real standard of openness and transparency. To the contrary, this new government entity appears to have authority to create its own rules for openness – or none at all.

 A priority in my lobbying is to advocate for strong open government laws in South Dakota – strong open government laws that apply to all levels of government in our state, whether it be a state board or commission, the governor’s office, a local school board or the mayor’s office.

 South Dakota’s open meetings laws and open records laws serve as a guide for openness, transparency and protection of the public’s right to know in all levels of government in our state. We can debate the strengths and weaknesses of those laws (and we do each legislative session), but those laws provide the road map.

 I’ve read the text of Amendment W and I cannot find any explicit or meaningful language in it to protect the public’s right to know regarding the proposed State Government Accountability Board. If anything, Amendment W creates a state board with vast powers and ability to determine its own openness standards.

 For example, there is no language in Amendment W that explicitly states this new board would be required to follow the open meetings laws, which require, among other things, that meeting agendas be publicly posted in advance of meetings and that all meetings be conducted in public view with opportunity for the public to participate.

 Amendment W does state that “all final reports and findings (of the Accountability Board) shall be made available to the public within ten days of completion.” However, there is no language in Amendment W that makes it crystal clear this board shall hold meetings in public. As anyone who follows government knows, the debate and discussion leading up to a decision is often as important as the decision itself when it comes to helping the public understand and know what government is doing.

 Amendment W contains no explicit language saying that this new board shall adhere to the state’s public records laws as found in Chapter 1-27 of our state’s codified laws. Chapter 1-27 provides direction to all levels of government regarding which government records and documents are open to public inspection and which records may not be open to public inspection.

 It appears to me that under Amendment W, this new proposed branch of government would have its own power to determine what it wants the public to see and what it chooses to hide, without regard for our state’s existing public records laws.

 It’s been my experience in the open government arena that when a law lacks explicit and clear directive, government tends to gravitate toward less disclosure and less transparency.

 For me, Amendment W fails on many fronts, but it especially fails when it comes to protecting the public’s right to know and supporting openness and transparency in government.