|
DELEGATE WILLONER: No, it was
an open meeting. Some meetings may have
been closed.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: It was sug-
gested to me that my question was not un-
derstood, and from the answer apparently
it was not.
DELEGATE WILLONER: The mere
fact that public funds are given to a pri-
vate institution would not be a reason for
it. Is that what you meant?
DELEGATE PULLEN: No, when MIT
has eighty-three percent of its budget from
the federal government and Johns Hopkins
has sixty percent of its budget from the
federal government, and practically every
educational institution in this country has
a large percentage of money from the gov-
ernment, and when Hopkins and other in-
stitutions get this kind of money, it seems
to me it is quite an appropriate question.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I agree with
you. This provision does not cover situa-
tions like Johns Hopkins or MIT. It goes
to governmental agencies.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Jett.
DELEGATE JETT: Would this apply
to adoption records?
DELEGATE WILLONER: They are
protected by statutes. Nothing would have
to be done. But if it did apply to adoption
records, then the legislature would have to
protect those provisions. I am sure it is
taken care of now.
As you well know, you seal the records
by statute now. This would not be an issue
because it is already taken care of.
DELEGATE JETT: Is it your statement
that any and all records would be open to
inspection unless protected by legislative
action?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes, that is
the intention, but it is bigger than that.
The word "records" has a judicial history.
It is limited by those matters that violate
the public interest.
The word "records" constitute formal
records, and it is limited by those matters.
It is a balance between the public interest
and the interest of the private citizen.
DELEGATE JETT: That would have to
be litigated to find out whether it was
against the public interest or not.
|
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is the
law now, sir. This is not a change in the
law as far as records are concerned.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. Willoner,
suppose that in an executive session, say
the Board of Public Works or the legisla-
ture, passed an extremely important emer-
gency money measure to meet a critical
problem, and in the meantime somebody
filed an injunction against it.
Just what would happen then? Would
the project be able to go into effect, or
would it have to wait until the court ruled?
DELEGATE WILLONER: The only
method of enforcement of this provision
would be that unless otherwise provided by
the legislature. For example, criminal pen-
alties would be by way of mandamus or in-
junction to open up the records not by way
of stopping the provision.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Are
there any further questions?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would make
it clear that the legislature could go further
and provide for whatever penalties they
wished to establish. In some states they
have criminal penalties.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Are
there any further questions of Delegate
Willoner?
(There was no response.)
If not, you can step down.
We are now going into controlled time,
and the Chair recognizes Delegate Willoner
for his portion of the controlled time.
Do you have the amendment prepared,
Delegate Willoner?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes. I would
like Amendment C.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) :
Amendment C will be Amendment No. 24.
Have they been distributed?
The pages will distribute the amendment.
For what purpose does Delegate Ulrich
rise?
DELEGATE ULRICH: A point of per-
sonal privilege.
I would like the Committee of the Whole
to welcome 77 students from General Mac-
Arthur High School, with their teachers,
Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Gross, and their
|
