|
other words, we would leave information
of that kind up to the legislature to decide
whether the public should know about it
or not. Is that right?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Delegate Koger,
you have hit it right on the head, because
as originally proposed by this minority re-
port, it would open everything, and the
legislature would have to close it. This
amendment that I have offered instead
would do the opposite. The legislature
could decide what the public ought to see
if it is necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Kiefer,
there has been some discussion of an exist-
ing common law right to certain public
records. Do I understand correctly that the
language of your amendment would permit
those records to be available to the public
only to the extent and in the manner pro-
vided by the general assembly so if the
General Assembly did nothing, then that
common law right would disappear?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: No, it does not
change anything. It simply announces the
right of the public to know, and it simply
provides what records may be available,
other than might otherwise be available will
be as provided by the General Assembly.
Now, they have already provided that
all the records generally speaking will be
open in most areas. They have also pro-
vided the number of areas in which they
shall not be open. This includes many
areas. The original amendment goes much
further. It opens all judicial records, and
despite the rules of court, and so forth, it
requires an act of the General Assembly to
close these off.
The General Assembly is going to have to
go through and make sure they do not
permit snooping instead of just knowing.
This does not change any basic common
law rights. It simply announces the policy
of the right to know, and in such areas
that are not already open that the legisla-
ture may decide to open. It does exactly
what the New York Constitution does,
which I believe is about as far as we could
possibly want to go.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
|
Delegate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Delegate Kief er,
could you tell me what you mean by the
meaning of the word "operates" in line 6
of your amendment, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Delegate Sollins,
I suppose that means the operations, all of
the operations of the government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: For example,
does it indicate that people have the right
to be present at all legislative committee
hearings, both at the state and local level?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: As I indicated to
you, this does not forbid the legislature
from going into executive session, but it
simply states the policy of allowing that
people shall have the right to know how
the government operates. If it worries you,
take it out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
There is time for just one more question,
and answer, if the question is brief.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Kiefer, I am
trying to get you two together. Would you
look at Amendment No. 24.
Would this be satisfactory with you if the
last clause were stricken out, and the whole
section had the following words added to
the beginning: " — to the extent provided
by law — " all government proceedings, and
so on.
Would this meet with your approval?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, this in ef-
fect is what I am trying to say.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Delegate Wil-
loner, do you feel this would weaken yours
too much?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would not
accept an amendment such as that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Kiefer's time for questions has
expired.
Is there any further discussion? Is there
any person who desires to speak in oppo-
sition to the amendment?
|
