OPEN MEETINGS ACT
The Best Press Law Is No Press Law
By CHARLES L. DANCEY
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE PEORIA JOURNAL STAR
I see that the state Legislature is fooling around with
another open meetings act. I remember the first time
they went to an open meetings act and to an open
records act.
I testified before the committee hearings each time.
I remember that part well because the first time I
testified, I spoke against such a law, and the whole press
corps was aghast. I never believed in that kind of legislation. As I told the committee, the Inter American Press
Association, experienced as it is in every trick of the
trade by governments of about 40 countries, has become convinced that the "best press law is no press
law."
Press laws usually turn out not to be a newsman's
paradise. Too often they become a lawyer's paradise
instead, or a bureaucrat's paradise. Formal laws have to
be administered by the numbers, with appropriate exemptions and step-by-step procedures. Time has to be
provided to make those formal decisions, at each step
of the procedure. This method thus becomes a godsend
to any body wishing to delay and obstruct.
Also, it means formal records, logs, of inquiries.
Anybody on the inside with a record to worry about is
apt to have a staffer check that record from time to time
to see if anybody is looking, Sometimes that can tip
them off to an investigation prematurely and spoil everything.
Things at the local and state levels were much easier
before that original legislation was passed. You asked to
see something and were either handed it automatically
or refused on the spot. If they refused, they were instantly on notice of a possible "cover-up" story, and
they also knew that the refusal would really focus investigative interest on that area. If there was anything
shady, it could blow up in their face with double
strength, since it would start with their efforts to hide.
As for private sessions, there is a need for such,
clearly, just as there is reason for lawyer-client privilege, and if something emerges into action that had to
be cooked up in advance yet pops up out of thin air, you
know instantly there was an improper secret session.
The price for that can really be high, especially if there
is something shady about the action. The climate for
that project automatically becomes suspicious. It looks
bad.
So government folks were usually promptly forthcoming. They didn't worry about procedures or "how
can we hold back and make it legal." Holding back for
any reason put them at immediate risk in the arena they
care most about — public perception.
Because of this, records of all kinds were routinely
available without folderol, and we were often urged to
attend private meetings to assure ourselves nothing
shady was going on, sometimes with the understanding
that if they strayed to public areas, we would feel free
to print it. Sometimes we went. Today, going is considered compromising by most, because we've amended
our version of the First Amendment to mean that anything we know is printable.
The trouble with that is what we now get from
executive sessions is some self-serving version by some
participant with his own axe to grind — and is anything
but fair or reliable. It has created the age of "leaks," and
leaks come with a purpose from somebody who has an
agenda of his own. They are guaranteed to be slanted at
the very least.
As for the way open meetings for the congressional
committees has worked, the result is a simple one. Negotiations no longer take place in committee meetings
and hence no longer are done by the congressmen or
women themselves. Top staffers of their offices meet
and work things out, instead. Result, more pork barrel
than in previous history, arranged by faceless members
of the club within the club on Capitol Hill — the association of staffers. That's no improvement.
I can't remember which "open" law was passed first
in Springfield, meetings or records, but I certainly re-
July 1991 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 5
member what happened when they came in with No. 2,
whichever one that was.
Having just experienced what had actually happened after the passage of the first one, the legislative
correspondents association and the Illinois Press Association joined me in opposing No. 2.
I sure remember that complete turnaround.
I also remember that it passed anyway. They gave
us something we didn't want — I guess, because it
would sound good to the uninitiated voter.
Today, I don't think there is anybody left in the
correspondents' gang who went through that experience or knows what it was really like when there were
no such rules and few, if any, in the Illinois Press Association.
So, heaven help us, indeed, this time. •
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK ...
(Continued from page 3)
The Glencoe resident also represented real estate
developers in communities where he was not governmental attorney. He worked to have a new type of
contract—an annexation agreement to guarantee that
promises made by both town and developer would be
fulfilled—made part of Illinois law.
He also was noted as the dean of Illinois municipal
and school lawyers, said a spokesman for the law firm,
and was active in the Illinois Municipal League.
In 1987, he contributed $1 million to the Northwestern University Law School, which established the Louis
and Harriet Ancel Chair of Law and Public Policy and
the Louis and Harriet Ancel Research Fund in 1989.
Besides his wife, Harriet, he is survived by a son,
Fredric; a daughter, Judith; a brother, Harvey, and four
grandchildren.
Memorial services were held at 2 p.m. July 14 at
Northwestern University Law School, Lincoln Hall, 357
E. Chicago. Burial will be private. •
Page 6 / Illinois Municipal Review / July 1991