Transparency key in state decision-making

Open meetings are kind of the bread-and-butter of what we do here at the Frontiersman. That many acts of government, by law, have to occur in an open session before the public meets that we are able to watch the wheels of government churn in real time and report for you what we observe.

It’s one of the reasons why reporter’s schedules can be screwy sometimes —we’re often staying up late with the Wasilla City Council or the Houston Planning Commission as they debate the details of some topic of public interest.

And that’s why we read with such interest the ruling from judge John Suddock handed down Dec. 16, 2014.

The case at hand had to do with the elimination of buffer zones around Denali National Park where it is illegal to hunt or trap wolves.

As a community that butts up against the park, we see news about the park as pertaining to Mat-Su.

But Suddock wasn’t deciding on the fate of those buffer zones. In fact, he was actually ruling about a procedural issue to do with the Alaska Open Meetings Act.

Judge Suddock cited this portion of the law in his ruling:

“All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law…”

The law defines “meeting” as a gathering of members of a governmental body when:

“(A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity...”

In rejecting the Alaska Wildlife Alliance’s petition for an emergency regulation re-instating those buffer zones, the Alaska Board of Game didn’t convene a meeting but rather conducted an e-mail poll of its members asking if the request constituted an emergency.

Board members decided it did not, rejecting the petition.

“The Board’s decision was not by a meeting, but by an e-mail poll consistent with long-standing practice on petitions for an emergency regulation when no Board meeting is otherwise scheduled within 30 days of receiving the petition,” read the official rejection letter.

That state business is ever conducted by “e-mail poll” was news to us. But apparently, at least in this instance, it no longer will be. Suddock ruled this kind of e-mail polling violates the law.

“While the obvious alternative procedure of convening a noticed teleconference of the Board involves a certain measure of time and expense, that is simply how boards must conduct business in order to comply with the (Alaska Open Meetings Act),” Suddock wrote.

We count this as a win for transparency. Yes, e-mail records are documented and, sure, they’re probably available upon request. But doing business via e-mail is a far cry from conducting the public’s business in public view and with real-time accountability for ones actions.

Further, we see the ruling broadly as a reminder to the people who serve in elected office and appointed to positions of public trust that it is important to honor the letter and the spirit of Alaska Open Meetings Act, which was drafted before the existence of new technologies such as email, text messages and the Internet and thus does not delineate their use specifically.

Thank you, Judge Suddock, for clarifying this detail and for the reminder of transparency’s role in good governance.