OPINION
LAWRENCE JOURNAL-WORLD LJWorld.com Friday, February 22, 2013
6A
EDITORIALS
What meeting? Legislation currently under discussion would seriously undermine the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
R
iddle: When is a meeting not a meeting? Answer: “The term ‘meeting’ shall not include: (a) Occasions when a majority of the membership of a body or agency subject to this act attends a social gathering or otherwise gathers so long as the body or agency does not deliberate specific matters that, at the time of the exchange, the participating members expect to come before the body or agency at a later date; and (b) gatherings of any political party caucus of either house of the legislature.” In other words, the Kansas Open Meetings Act is hereby totally neutered, under the wording offered up in House Bill 2336 by the House Judiciary Committee. Similar action is proposed in a companion piece, Senate Bill 200. The proposals are interpreted as a response to last year’s meetings at Cedar Crest, where legislators gathered at the governor’s invitation. An investigation ensued to determine whether the open meetings act was violated. There were seven meetings, mainly involving Republican lawmakers, and it was a Shawnee County Democratic district attorney who opened the probe. There was no prosecution, although the investigator alleged “technical” violations of the law and noted many of those participating knew little about the law. With that dust settled, the lawmakers now are proposing to make any social event a place where any and all issues can be discussed without the public being informed. This would apply to all officials covered by the open meetings law, not just legislators — although they obviously are giving themselves a specific exception. The Senate bill would allow such conversations as long as they did not lead to formulation of policy or to a vote. It’s already difficult enough to police discussions by public officials outside their convened sessions. These proposals practically invite officials to thumb their noses at the law and easily let them keep the public out of the process through which they arrive at decisions — especially decisions on issues that officials may prefer to settle without being heard and seen. It’s a bad idea. OK, you folks under the Capitol dome. You’ve vented. Now get back to work on behalf of the public instead of working against the people who elected you.
New ties to Russia would benefit U.S. WASHINGTON — A sign of Russia’s defensiveness, bordering on paranoia, is that some senior Russian officials regard the recent buzz about shale gas and oil as American propaganda designed to undermine Moscow’s clout as an energy producer. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has a chip on its shoulder, for sure. It’s a big weight of resentment, reflecting the crushed ambitions of a fallen superpower. But Russia still has big shoulders, too. It’s a country that, for all its ills, has the ability to assist or obstruct U.S. diplomacy. The administration is exploring ways to engage Russia as President Obama begins his second term. At the top of the list are the biggest U.S. headaches — Syria, Iran and North Korea. The White House thinks that after a period of frosty relations, Putin is also looking to rebuild a cooperative relationship. White House officials are encouraged that even when relations were sour, Putin never threatened core U.S. interests, such as the “northern distribution route” for shipping supplies to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, transiting former Soviet states. “They want to find a way back to a stable relationship,” argues one senior official. The outreach to Russia is meant to be hands-on, embodying Vice President Joe Biden’s dictum that “all politics is personal.” Biden expansively courted Russian Foreign
David Ignatius
davidignatius@washpost.com
“
I’d argue that the benefits of a more cooperative U.S.Russian relationship — on Syria, Iran, North Korea, arms control and other issues — are so substantial that they are worth the cost.” Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference this month. National security adviser Tom Donilon is planning a trip soon to Moscow to see Putin and discuss arms control and other issues. John Kerry, the new secretary of state, spoke with Lavrov last Sunday and is planning to meet him soon. And President Obama will probably meet Putin this September in Russia before the G-20 meeting. Biden’s meeting with Lavrov on Feb. 2 illustrated the new bid for cooperation. Noting that Russia had trained the Syrian military unit that handles chemical weapons, he proposed that the U.S. and Russia cooperate in securing those weapons if President
Bashar al-Assad’s regime should fall. It was an implicit recognition of Russia’s continuing interest in Syria after Assad is gone. Biden and Lavrov also discussed the danger that the war in Syria could produce a Balkanized nation fragmented into ethnic cantons. Russia understands that such an outcome would harm its interests. The diplomatic contribution Russia could make in Syria was highlighted that same day in Munich, when Lavrov met Sheik Ahmad Moaz alKhatib, who leads a coalition of Syrian opposition groups. Afterward, Lavrov praised Khatib’s willingness to meet with representatives of the Assad regime and promised continued Russian contact with the Syrian opposition. When Kerry phoned Lavrov Sunday, “they discussed the importance of the U.S. and Russia using their respective influence on the parties in support of a viable political transition process,” according to the State Department. While these diplomatic maneuvers are encouraging, they are faint sparks of light against the dark tableau of Russian support for Assad in a war that has now killed more than 60,000 Syrians. Part of the frustration of dealing with Putin is that for him, everything seems to be transactional. There’s a price for Russian peacemaking in Syria or support for limiting Iran’s nuclear program. But what is it? Obama might make the deal, if
Masters, servants
By Wendy Weiser
Facebook.com/LJWorld Twitter.com/LJWorld
LAWRENCE
JOURNAL-WORLD
®
ESTABLISHED 1891
What the Lawrence Journal-World stands for Accurate and fair news reporting. No mixing of editorial opinion with reporting of the news.
Safeguarding the rights of all citizens regardless of race, creed or economic stature.
Sympathy and understanding for all who are disadvantaged or oppressed.
Exposure of any dishonesty in public affairs.
Support of projects that make our community a better place to live.
W.C. Simons (1871-1952) Publisher, 1891-1944 Dolph Simons Sr. (1904-1989) Publisher, 1944-1962; Editor, 1950-1979
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Editor Mark Potts, Vice President of Content Mike Countryman, Director of Susan Cantrell, Vice President Circulation Ann Gardner, Editorial Page Editor of Sales and Marketing, Media Caroline Trowbridge, Managing Division Ed Ciambrone, Production Manager Editor
THE WORLD COMPANY Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman
Dolph C. Simons III,
Dan C. Simons, President,
President, Newspapers Division
Electronics Division
Suzanne Schlicht, Chief Operating Officer Ralph Gage, Director, Special Projects
— David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
PUBLIC FORUM
Fix the flawed voting process FOLLOW US
he knew what it was. Critics of Obama’s policy argue that engaging Putin will only encourage him to continue his repressive policies at home. Putin is a bully, goes this argument, and appeasing him will backfire. He encourages Assad’s brutal war in Syria because he fought similar battles against Chechen rebels. And as the U.S. engages Putin, it becomes complicit in his suppression of dissent. So what’s the answer to this classic foreign-policy dilemma, where U.S. interests and values are in conflict? I’d argue that the benefits of a more cooperative U.S.-Russian relationship — on Syria, Iran, North Korea, arms control and other issues — are so substantial that they are worth the cost. That’s a heavy burden, especially since it’s likely to be borne by Russian human-rights activists. The Obama administration made a similar strategic choice in its first term, when it decided that a positive “reset” with Russia was a top priority and placed missile defense, NATO expansion and other issues lower on its list. This decision opened the way for Russian support of U.N. resolutions sanctioning Iran. A second presidential term isn’t a clean slate, but it offers a new chance to test whether Russia’s interests and America’s can be aligned. To get where he wants over the next four years, Obama needs to unlock the Russia door.
After the State of the Union, the big question remains: Can congressional Democrats and Republicans put aside partisan politics to seriously address the major issues facing our country? With the debt crisis ever looming, and judicial and executive nominees languishing, there is plenty of opportunity for partisan rancor. But there is one area where politics should be — and, surprisingly, may be able to be — tossed aside: voting. In 2011 and 2012, we saw a wave of states pass restrictive laws that would have made it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote. Citizens and voting advocates mounted a massive effort to push back and ensure everyone could have their say at the ballot box. In state after state, courtroom after courtroom, the most serious efforts to restrict the vote were rolled back and voters won. Now, there are signs of a sea change: Politicians are pulling back from efforts to rig the system before they even get signed into law. In the wake of the last election, where we saw long lines, voting machine shortages, voter registration failures, overwhelmed poll workers, and voters turned away, it is clearer than ever that we need to upgrade our elections to ensure our democracy remains free, fair and accessible. As the president said, “We have to fix that.” Today we can make sure every eligible voter who wants to be registered is regis-
“
Today we can make sure every eligible voter who wants to be registered is registered, everyone who wants to vote can, and no one is turned away because of long lines.” tered, everyone who wants to vote can, and no one is turned away because of long lines. All we need is national leadership to prod three steps to modernize our elections. The first step is modernizing voter registration. Most of the country still relies on a 19th-century paper-based system that is inefficient and rife with errors. The Pew Center on the States found that one in four eligible citizens is not on the rolls, and one in eight registration records has serious errors. When poll workers have to rummage through reams of paper to find names that have been misspelled or included at the wrong address, long lines are exacerbated. In 2008, up to 3 million citizens tried to vote but could not vote due to registration problems. Up to onethird of unregistered citizens were registered at one point and fell off the rolls when they moved. We have the technology to add 50 million eligible citizens to the rolls while improving accuracy and security. Voters could register online or paperlessly with public agencies. Their registrations would go with them when they move.
And failsafe protections would guard against abuse and ensure no eligible voter is left out. States that have implemented these reforms see fewer errors, higher registration rates, and, ultimately, a lower price — modernizing saves millions. We have no excuse not to do it. To address long lines, we also need to modernize when and how Americans vote. Expanding early voting will offer voters more convenience and choice. Minimum national standards for polling place access — strongly supported by voters — can ensure nobody has to wait more than an hour to vote. It is inexcusable that some voters waited for eight hours because there were not enough resources at the polling place for an election to run smoothly. Long lines cannot become the lasting symbol of the American election system. We need to invest in our democracy so this does not happen in another election cycle. The president was right — our journey is not complete until we make sure every eligible American who wants to vote is able to cast a ballot that counts. Americans want solutions to our problems, not partisanship. These are American ideas to fix what’s wrong. We can be an example to the world, rather than a cautionary tale — and demonstrate that on Election Day, all Americans are truly all equal. — Wendy Weiser is the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
To the editor: The recent curbside recycling proposal set forth by the Lawrence city commissioners replaces a marketoriented private recycling program with a state-run monopoly recycling program managed by a central planning committee. This would increase cost, be mandatory and no longer would individuals have freedom of choice. Quotes by two of our city commissioners in the Feb. 13 Journal-World summarize the justification for this recycling proposal: “We have such a reputation in Lawrence of being such a progressive community, but when people hear we don’t have a universal curbside recycling program, they are amazed by that,” City Commissioner Aron Cromwell said. “Adding jobs in this town is a very important factor,” City Commissioner Hugh Carter said. City Hall’s history of cronyism, special tax districts, nobid contracts, tax abatements, etc., are not the cornerstones on which progressive cities are built nor are they conducive to job creation. Our forefathers provided us a form of government whereby elected officials would be servants and individuals would be their masters. Any elected official that reverses these roles and would prohibit freedom of choice by individuals or ignore the laws of nature should be removed from office. History teaches that men and/or women in power must be held accountable or they will destroy a civilization from within. We as individuals must participate in every election in order to preserve our rightful role as masters or we will surely become servants of the state. J. Joe Herynk, Lawrence
Letters Policy
The Journal-World welcomes letters to the Public Forum. Letters should be 250 words or less, be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The Journal-World reserves the right to edit letters, as long as viewpoints are not altered. By submitting letters, you grant the JournalWorld a nonexclusive license to publish, copy and distribute your work, while acknowledging that you are the author of the work. Letters must bear the name, address and telephone number of the writer. Letters may be submitted by mail to Box 888, Lawrence Ks. 66044 or by email to: letters@ljworld.com