Lawmakers go 0 for 2 on open government

House lawmakers whiffed this week on two softball chances to bring more sunshine and accountability to government. One bill would have made probable cause affidavits open records. These affidavits, in which police officers give reasons for asking a judge to issue an arrest warrant, are presumed open in at least 45 other states (and they’ve had no problems). The other bill would have allowed a public official to object to participating in a closed or executive session, if that person believed it violated the state’s open meetings law. At that point, if the meeting continued, it would have to be recorded for possible review by a judge. As our editorial on today’s opinion page notes, these were modest, compromise measures that would have provided some needed openness and scrutiny — which is likely why the district attorneys, cities, counties and school board associations were so vigorously opposed to them.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

5 Comments

  1. Ben Huie
    Posted February 25, 2006 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    And you are surprised?

  2. J
    Posted February 25, 2006 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad that probable cause affidavits will remain closed. There is no reason for them to be public except to harm a defendant’s chance at a fair trial (like that happens in Sedgwick County anyway)

  3. JUSTA GUY
    Posted February 26, 2006 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Open government in Kansas! That might let the voters know what’s going on. NO WAY!

  4. OneShot
    Posted February 26, 2006 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Open government should be the default position. We shouldn’t have to define a reason to make these records public, rather the police should have to make the case each time to keep the records private.

  5. james
    Posted February 26, 2006 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    I was going to respond but, it’s pointless!! Our Brilliant Legislature has made the decision, for all of us.