This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

As the Utah Legislature nears its halfway point, lawmakers should be praised for their work to keep government open and reject bills that would harm the public interest.

However, most legislative action has been defensive with little attention paid to proactive measures to let more light shine on government. Here's a brief update.

—

Bills aimed at legislative caucuses • Two bills seek to open political party caucuses at the Legislature. The first, SB45, sponsored by the Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake City, would require caucuses be open if a majority of the party's legislators are meeting to discuss state business during the legislative session.

The other bill, HB89, sponsored by Rep. Kraig Powell, R-Heber City, also would open political party caucuses of legislators. It differs from SB45 in that it requires any meeting of a quorum of legislators to be open to the public if legislation is being discussed. This requirement would apply even when the Legislature is not in session. If this bill had been law last year, much of the closed-door process used by lawmakers during redistricting would have been open to public view, engendering more confidence from skeptical voters.

Both are great ideas, but sadly neither bill is likely to get a hearing. HB89 is languishing in the powerful House rules committee and has not been assigned a committee for review. The story is the same for the Senate bill. If past history is any guide, these bills will become part of the 2012 legislative session's trash heap.

—

Closed meetings bills • Another bill that would strengthen Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, HB111, is also headed for the trash heap. HB111 got a quick death sentence in a House committee. The bill would have made it so small meetings involving only some members of a public body would still be subject to the Open and Public Meetings Act.

Specifically, if two or more members of a public body meet to discuss an issue that the public body oversees, then notice must be given and the meeting open to the public. During a hearing, some lawmakers speculated that if two members went outside a public meeting to examine something they would be found in violation of the law.

The truth is, the law should be much narrower to exempt such activities and prohibit only intentional exercises to skirt the law, such as having City Council members meet individually with a developer or city attorney to discuss an important public issue. Legislators should take this bill more seriously and study how other states have implemented such laws. If there is no appetite to bring this bill up in committee again, putting this bill on interim study agenda would be a good idea.

—

Voter registration information bills • A bill aimed at reducing public information available about voters has stalled. HB304 would make a voter's month and day of birth, but not the year of birth, a private record. Current law makes the complete birth date of a registered voter a public record so that the public can use the information to verify that an election process has been carried out legitimately. That verification process is weakened if only one of those three birth fields (day, month, year) is public.

Another bill, SB18, that would close voters' email addresses appears on its way to passage but has a neutral effect on the ability to check on the election process. The current status of these two bills shows a reasonable balance between privacy and the public's right to know.

Joel Campbell is a former reporter and current associate professor of communications at Brigham Young University. He is also a consultant for GRAMA Watch. He writes on First Amendment and open-government issues for The Tribune. He can be reached at foiguy@gmail.com.