All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Vox Hawkeye A Study in the Intellectual Call for Open Government (and How One State Heeded It)
Unformatted Document Text:  Tucker further excoriated the notion that open meetings laws will do anything even minimally effective in "cleaning up" government, noting that, "(t)o the extent that there are shady dealings, open meetings will at most cause a change of venue. . . (b)ecause such a problem is one of human nature, not procedure.” 47 He made a further stab at an empirical understanding of the effects that the federal Sunshine Law had on government agencies by sending out questionnaires to 28 members of 14 federal agencies, such as the Federal Reserve Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the FCC. While most of the responses to his questions were couched in self-serving or circumspect language, one general verity that was revealed involved the belief by most respondents that the open meetings act affected their ability to informally discuss their agencies' business, with many noting that the pall cast on their deliberative processes was "significant.” 48 As Tucker noted, such a possible adverse consequence was seemingly heeded by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975), where Justice White opined that "(h)uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances... to the detriment of the decision-making process.” 49 As history well documents, despite the stark ambivalence within the scholarly community with regard to the source—and sanity—of open meeting laws, the period of the mid-1960s to early-1980s was an active time for states to institute, review and, in many instances, reform laws on this subject. While this particular paper does not require an exhaustive recitation of each state’s experience in this regard, it can still be observed that it was truly remarkable how, in the aggregate, many of these laws effectively reconciled the aims, desires and concerns of all parties to the issue (including many of the academics) as to whether—and to what extent—the government should be open to the governed. For example, many state open meeting and open records laws begin with a very strongly worded purpose statement that the government is the creature of the people and that as such the statute confers a "presumption of openness" 47 Ibid, 544. 48 Ibid, 547. 49 Ibid, 551.

Authors: stepanek, steve.
first   previous   Page 16 of 55   next   last

background image
Tucker further excoriated the notion that open meetings laws will do anything even minimally 
effective in "cleaning up" government, noting that, "(t)o the extent that there are shady dealings, open 
meetings will at most cause a change of venue. . . (b)ecause such a problem is one of human nature, not 
  He made a further stab at an empirical understanding of the effects that the federal 
Sunshine Law had on government agencies by sending out questionnaires to 28 members of 14 federal 
agencies, such as the Federal Reserve Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the FCC.  While most 
of the responses to his questions were couched in self-serving or circumspect language, one general verity 
that was revealed involved the belief by most respondents that the open meetings act affected their ability 
to informally discuss their agencies' business, with many noting that the pall cast on their deliberative 
processes was "significant.
As Tucker noted, such a possible adverse consequence was seemingly heeded by the Supreme 
Court in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975), where Justice White opined that "(h)uman 
experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor 
with a concern for appearances... to the detriment of the decision-making process.
As history well documents, despite the stark ambivalence within the scholarly community with 
regard to the source—and sanity—of open meeting laws, the period of the mid-1960s to early-1980s was 
an active time for states to institute, review and, in many instances, reform laws on this subject.  While 
this particular paper does not require an exhaustive recitation of each state’s experience in this regard, it 
can still be observed that it was truly remarkable how, in the aggregate, many of these laws effectively 
reconciled the aims, desires and concerns of all parties to the issue (including many of the academics) as 
to whether—and to what extent—the government should be open to the governed.  For example, many 
state open meeting and open records laws begin with a very strongly worded purpose statement that the 
government is the creature of the people and that as such the statute confers a "presumption of openness" 
 Ibid, 544.
 Ibid, 547.
 Ibid, 551.

All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 55   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.