Court backs closed meetings

The Idaho Constitution allows the Legislature to close committee meetings to the public, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting arguments by the media that lawmakers should conduct business in the open.

The 3-2 decision is a blow to the Idaho Press Club, which sued the Legislature for closing seven committee meetings in 2003 and 2004. The press club, which was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Idaho Conservation League and Idaho League of Women Voters, argued that the Legislature violated the state constitution and that founders intended the meetings to remain open because that’s where the majority of legislative work is done. Committees also are the only place where the public can affect legislation by testifying and giving instruction to elected officials.

The high court upheld a Fourth District Court ruling that legislative committees – such as the House and Senate resources, tax and local government committees – don’t do the business of the Legislature, so the constitution does not require them to keep their meetings open to the public. The decision determines that “business” is conducted only when there is a majority of the House or Senate present.

The news comes as the 2006 legislative session is approaching its end, but Majority Leader Sen. Bart Davis said there perhaps is time to clarify when it’s appropriate for committees to close meetings.

Currently both the House and Senate can close committee meetings for any reason.

Davis believes, as he said most lawmakers do, that there is rarely a need to close a committee meeting to the public but that the Legislature should have the ability to do so in some specific instances such as when discussing terrorism or state security.

It’s those parameters that Davis needs to work out with the Democrats and the public, including the press club, which represents more than 200 radio, television and newspaper journalists.

If it’s not done by the end of the session, which might adjourn next week, Davis fears it will become a controversial campaign issue because every legislator is up for re-election. Yet if the rules aren’t amended this session, Davis said lawmakers will take up the issue when the 2007 Legislature convenes in January.

Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett of Ketchum is disappointed with the decision and said there are fundamental differences between the Democrats and the Republicans and he doesn’t see where amending the House and Senate rules will make much difference.

“They’ll show it to us and ask us what we think,” Stennett said about proposed rule changes. “But you’re either for open meetings or you’re not.”

Press Club President Betsy Z. Russell, a Spokesman-Review reporter, said even though the club lost its lawsuit, it still put focus on the need to conduct legislative business in the open.

She pointed out that the dissenting opinion, by Justices Jim Jones and Roger Burdick, states that the constitution always requires openness. She added lawmakers haven’t closed a single committee meeting since the lawsuit was filed.

“If this case prompts the Legislature to look at how it operates and become open to the citizens, then it was well worth it,” she said.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Daniel Eismann, acknowledges the policy arguments made by the press club and the three other groups to why legislative committee meetings should always be open. Eismann said the court can’t use policy arguments to give the constitution meaning but that the Legislature can use these reasons when deciding whether to permit its committee meetings to be closed.

That policy may also support a constitutional amendment to specifically define when and if legislators should close committee meetings, he wrote.

It takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate followed by a vote of the people to pass a constitutional amendment. Russell said it’s unlikely the Legislature would vote to put restrictions on itself. Instead the press club is ready to start working with leadership on a more restrictive rule for when the public can be barred from committee meetings.

Former Republican Rep. Gary Ingram wrote the Open Meeting Law and fears that with this decision lawmakers may try to repeal the sections of the law.

“It seems to me the Legislature that we currently have is too willing to look for ways to get around open meetings law rather than be guardians about it,” said Ingram, who lives in Coeur d’Alene.