2750

VETOES

to enter into contracts, spend money, make plans and
decisions, and take actions that they otherwise may not
have done. who then is hurt, who is punished, if a court
later voids the public body's action because it was not
taken in compliance with this bill? The members of the
public body may be the subject of criticism, but it is
the public that acted in reliance on the voided action
whose legal or economic status is affected.

It is true, under the bill, that a proceeding to
challenge the action must be commenced within 45 days;
however, there is no time limit within which the court
must decide the case. A challenge under this bill may
well involve factual disputes that can be resolved only
after a full trial. It is not improbable, therefore,
that months could elapse before the matter is determined
at the trial court level, and a year or more if there are
appeals.

At the vary least, a prudent parson will refrain
from acting upon any action taken by any public body
until the 45 day period for filing suit has elapsed.
Thus, the mere existence of the "voidability" provision
may well prevent the prompt effectiveness of governmental
decisions and actions. The filing of a lawsuit, however
frivolous, would further delay the implementation of the
decision or action.

The local governments have also expressed great
concern over the inclusion of advisory bodies in the
bill. They point out that many of these bodies are
composed of citizens not otherwise connected with
government, but who, out of civic duty, devote their
time, effort, and ability free of charge to assist
government in the efficient discharge of its
responsibilities. These people are an invaluable
resource; and the local governments fear that if these
citizens are subjected to the potential harrassment
inherent in this bill, they may be unwilling to serve.

I share that concern, but also have one other.
Advisory bodies are not executive decision makers. Their
function is generally to survey problems candidly and
critically, and to suggest solutions and alternatives.
Most of these bodies — task forces, study commissions,
citizen advisory groups — do not close their meetings to
the public. But there are often occasions not accounted
for in section 11(a) when, because of the nature of the
problem itself, candor and free discussion would be
stifled by premature publicity, and the governing body
(and ultimately the public) would not then receive the
best and full input from the advisory body.

The letters I have received from the local
governments raise a number of other problems with respect