Transparency and democratic values

“…formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.”

C.R.S. § 6-4-401

I have been heartened and disappointed by reactions to the Colorado Open Meeting Law (COML) suit that state Rep. Elisabeth Epps and I led against Colorado’s legislature.

Colorado’s voters enacted COML through a citizen initiative in 1971 by a 20 point margin. Politicians immediately chafed at requiring that they conduct public business publicly. A state senator immediately sued to declare the law unconstitutional for violating First Amendment rights of elected o cials. But in 1983, Colorado’s Supreme Court de nitively ruled that COML applies to the legislature and legislative caucuses. Lawmakers, however, have been ignoring COML requirements for years.

I am not a persnickety Dudley Do-Right. I’ve served in places where morally gray de- cisions often must be made. And we are all fallible. Forgiveness of transgressions with the hope that we can do better is something to which we should all strive. (John 8:3-11, KJV). But after becoming a COML expert through holding Douglas County’s Board of Education accountable for their illegal conduct violating COML, ignoring extensive COML violations in the legislature was too much hypocrisy to bear.

And there are reasons for these laws. Ignoring COML serves the self-interest of politicians to advance polices they prefer, but it undermines trust in government necessary for people to respect those policies. COML also serves the interest of all citizens, but particularly those who lack “special access” to the closed door meetings which COML forces open.

Among supporters and detractors of the lawsuit, I note a striking dichotomy. ose who currently, or traditionally, have access to closed meetings where policy is made