|
that the public interest would be served by
maintaining an executive session they could
so maintain it.
Now, in explaining this provision before,
I explained that the method of enforcement
would be by way of injunction or man-
damus; in other words, if the session were
a closed session and a citizen wished to
attend the session, he would have to seek
a writ of mandamus and this provision
would be all persuasive.
Now that is no longer the case. The pro-
vision would provide that while the pre-
sumption would be that it would be an open
meeting, it would be refutable to the extent
that if the public interest was served by
maintaining an executive session, an execu-
tive session would be appropriate.
For example, several questions were raised
about a discussion involving purchase of
land. It is obvious that that would be an
area that would be protected.
Another area would be discussions in-
volving personnel, the area where the right
to privacy would be involved, but this
would be left up to the court. It would be
a rebuttable presumption instead of an
absolute presumption of open meetings.
May I say this is really taking the same
concept that is now in the common law in
regard to records. There is a right to view
public records today.
However, where the public interest re-
quires that the records be closed, the courts
can act to protect this as they have pro-
tected the records of the grand juries,
they have protected the police records, and
matters such as that. Essentially we would
be applying the same tests that are used
in the protection of public records today
by the courts.
Now, secondly, this has a second escape
clause in that the exception "as otherwise
prescribed by law" applies to the whole
section and the legislature could provide
for a protection of certain things that
would not fall within this public interest
area. This provision would not be effective,
as was in the original memorandum sup-
porting this, until 1970.
This is one of the most important rights.
As I explained before, and I do not want
to go into the details and the need for this,
almost everybody who has spoken for or
against this particular right admitted that
it is a problem, namely, this right to get
access to information.
|
Now, this has often been considered part
of the right to the freedom of speech and
the freedom of the press because if you
have got nothing to write or speak about
this is a limitation, although the courts
have not gone that far. This would be a
development in this area.
I challenge this body to do something
original in this Declaration of Rights to
provide for this freedom of information
and I ask you to support this.
The last time it failed by, I believe, four
votes. I would hope that with these changes
made in this freedom of information section
that this would now meet those critics and
would allow Maryland to take a new step
in a new area and that we could truly con-
sider ourselves founding fathers.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, I would like to ask the sponsors of
this amendment if —
THE PRESIDENT: Just a second.
He has just a little over half a minute
so make your question brief.
Delegate Willoner, do you yield to a
question?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Would
you accept an amendment to this in line 0,
striking out the words "except as other-
wise," and inserting in lieu thereof "to the
extent and in the manner?"
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would not.
I think that destroys the whole argument.
The argument that the presumption
switches would not take effect if you just
had it as provided by law.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I wanted
to explain to Delegate Willoner that there
are two modes of approach this way.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he under-
stands that, but his time has expired, Dele-
gate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I will ask Del-
egate Willoner if he will accept an amend-
ment to the amendment.
|
