Open government? Says who?

I shouldn’t be admitting this during Sunshine Week, but I don’t believe open government is truly an attainable goal — in fact I think it’s less attainable now in this high-tech world we live in. Ironic, right?

Is it possible to prevent three town board members from a spur-of-the-moment gathering in the supervisor’s office where they might discuss town business? How could you otherwise get anything done?

Those questions were posed to me this morning by former Riverhead supervisor Jim Stark, who called me from his winter home in Hawaii after reading my other blogs about open government.

Now, Jim did not exactly hold the Open Meetings Law in high esteem when he occupied the corner office at 200 Howell Avenue. He reminisced with me about how his behavior drove former News-Review editor Ruth Jernick up the wall — something he seemed to relish.

But there was also a time in Riverhead when the “real” town board meetings were said to take place at the Rendezvous, when then-supervisor Joe Janoski would hold forth sipping either a Tab or a Jameson.

Jim and I served two years on the town board (1990 and 1991) and our differences of opinion were legion. But all these years later, we agree on this: the Open Meetings Law is something of a sham.

Today, especially, with the ability to have conversations by email — or how about a Google hangout? — there are so many ways to get around the requirement of an open meeting it’s not even funny.

Jim says, “What do you expect?”

I say, “I expect better.”

Joe used to say (when I was his colleague on the town board from 1988 to 1991), “Denise, darling, you’re too damned idealistic.”

Maybe so. And the realist within acknowledges that there’s little we can do to change the way the people’s business is conducted in private. The law is the law. But its violation carries no penalties. And nobody enforces it. Nobody in a government position of authority, anyway.

You see, enforcement of the N.Y.’s Open Meetings and Freedom of Information laws is left up to people like me: lowly reporters. The job of holding public officials accountable falls to us. When necessary, we are supposed to “enforce” the open government laws with sharply worded editorials shedding light on violations by local officials — the same officials we lowly reporters rely on for the information and interviews we need to write stories. So we are supposed to be the watchdogs of good government, though, to some extent, we are at the mercy of people we’re supposed to be watching.

It is wearying, to say the least— especially because if there’s one thing officials have in common regardless of party, position, gender or age, it’s thin skin. Watchdogs that bark and growl find themselves in the doghouse. “Treats” of story tips and leads are doled out to other pups. Politicians prefer lapdogs.

And if blistering editorials don’t have the desired effect — then sue, dammit. That’s right, we’re supposed to sue to enforce the state law’s provisions.

Media organizations do bring lawsuits, but the organizations that can afford to sue are the big media and they’re not generally following the practices at Riverhead Town Hall or Riverhead Central School District too carefully. Who can blame them? With issues like the abuses taking place by the NSA, why would they be concerned about a quorum of the town board discussing town business behind closed doors?

To be fair, openness in Riverhead Town government has improved in recent times. Today, Freedom of Information Law requests receive prompt answers, in my experience. There was a time when the town didn’t even bother to acknowledge a FOIL request, let alone respond to it in compliance the requirements spelled out in the statute.

But town government could do better and officials should strive to do so.

More documents should be online for easy public access.

All boards and committees subject to the open meetings law should be instructed to comply with its requirement that all documents being discussed at a public meeting must be made available to the public and the press during the meeting — so they can understand what’s going on.

Transparency should be the default mode. Yes, the law — the frustratingly toothless law — says that too.

In general, though, things have moved in the opposite direction, away from greater transparency. And it’s not just the NSA. Politicians forbid staff members from talking to the press about anything. In Riverhead, everything has to go through the supervisor. In Suffolk County, nobody can talk to the press except County Executive Steve Bellone’s communications director. In New York, many inquiries that used to be handled by state agencies’ local offices must now go to Albany. You can probably imagine how quickly and well a tiny news organization like this is serviced.

Government spokespersons give reporters rehearsed answers even when they don’t make sense or are not responsive to the question asked. And they stick to them, repeating the same thing over and over. One day recently, my voice rising, I actually told one such person to stop insulting me and just say flat out he refused to answer my question. The older I get, the lower my tolerance for BS.

Of course I realize the need to pick my battles prudently, but battle I will, if I must.

Meanwhile, just make sure my doghouse has high-speed wifi.

If you’ve had trouble retrieving information and records from a public entity, please let me know. 

Prior Sunshine Week 2014 blogs:

When is a closed-door town board meeting exempt from the Open Meetings law?

‘Open’ is more than a formality