State rethinks two open government laws

By GEOFF MULVIHILL TRENTON — The idea is to bring open government principles to the era of smartphones. Under a pair of bills under consideration by New Jersey lawmakers, town council members would no longer be able to text each other during public meetings, government agencies that have websites would have to use them to provide information about their meetings; and official video and audio recordings of meetings would be included as public records. "Both of these bills are to take into effect the technological revolution we've all lived through over the last decade," said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the proposed measures. "Everything that we do as elected officials should be done publicly." Weinberg, a Democrat from Teaneck, said she hopes passing the laws will become a top priority for legislators after they finish the state budget, likely in June. The bills would change many elements of the open meetings and records laws, making penalties stiffer for officials who don't provide public records, and including more documents as public records and clarifying that people who aren't New Jersey residents can still get access to records. But in some cases, lawmakers themselves would be exempted from tough new requirements, including the texting ban. Critics have emerged, saying some of the proposed changes have technological flaws and some could drive up costs for taxpayers. "Ironically, in certain ways, this bill can make government less transparent," said Drew Pavlica, the municipal clerk in Garfield and the president of the Municipal Clerks Association of New Jersey. "It makes government more procedure-oriented rather than problem-solving the issues of the public." He cites, particularly, one provision of the open public meetings proposal that would not allow local governments, in most cases, to take action on any items that weren't on the meeting agenda at least 48 hours before the meeting. Pavlica said that when citizens come to council meetings to call attention to problems such as potholes or traffic lights, the law may preclude officials from solving the problems on the spot. He said, as a result, citizens may be discouraged from voicing problems like those during public meetings. He also said he worries about the cost of complying with the proposed laws. Lori Buckelew, a legal analyst for the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said her group supports the concept of shedding more public light on government but has problems with some provisions of the bills. "It's going to make government less effective," she said. "You're going to start tying the hands of the public body." Weinberg said she's heard reports of members of town councils and other local government agencies texting each other during meetings rather than speaking in front of the assembled public. She wants to ban that practice so that public business would be conducted in full view of the public. But she said state lawmakers don't need the rule. "There are 120 of us versus a local governing body that's five or seven or nine," she said. "Everything we do is already in public. All of our committee meetings are in public. They're online for people to hear." "We exempt ourselves but most of the stuff we already do was in public," she said. Heather Taylor, spokeswoman for Citizens Action, a consumer and individual watchdog group, said the laws need revision to get in step with modern technology — particularly an open public meetings law that has not been updated since 1975. "These bills are long overdue," she said.