Ohio's open meetings law must not be watered down

In 1982, The Vindicator sued Youngstown City Council to put an end to lawmakers' long-standing practice of caucusing in private before their regular sessions. The trial judge not only upheld the public's right to know what legislators were doing 99 percent of the time, but went a step further and warned the seven voting members of council that whenever a majority got together, the newspaper had a right to be present.
In the 25 years since that lawsuit, we have made open government our cause. Ohio's Sunshine Law was enacted with the promise that the people's work would be conducted in the open. But getting public officials to toe the line has been a challenge, at best. It seems that secrecy in government is contagious.
For that reason, we believe the state's open meetings law and the one dealing with public records should be strengthened, not weakened.
And thus we strongly oppose an amendment being pushed by Republicans in the Ohio House of Representatives to permit municipalities and townships to meet in secret when establishing Joint Economic Development Districts.
House Bill 11, sponsored by Rep. Arlene Setzer, R-Vandalia, is to be heard today in the House Local Government Committee. It could well be reported out immediately and sent to the floor for a vote.
Unnecessary change
We urge legislators who believe that government flourishes in the sunshine to oppose this overly broad, unnecessary change in the law.
As Frank E. Deaner, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association, stated a letter to Setzer, "Joint economic development districts involve contracts covering municipalities and surrounding townships. By definition in the Ohio Revised Code, these contracts may involve questions of annexation, realignment of public services and potential new income taxes."
Deaner noted that the contract between a municipality and township could affect property taxes and their applications to such public services as construction and repair of streets, roads and bridges, parks and recreation, community mental retardation and developmental disabilities programs and senior citizens facilities and services.
Because of the legal interaction between two different government entities, JEDDS are viewed with suspicion by many township residents, as the current discussion between the city of Youngstown and Austintown Township has shown.
While Mayor Jay Williams believes that the establishment of such a district would be a win-win for both communities, many residents of Austintown see it as nothing more than the city attempting to grab on to an easy source of revenue.
Permitting city and township officials to meet behind closed doors would lead to increased public cynicism about government -- at a time when officeholders are trying to win back the public's trust.
We can see no reason why municipal and township negotiators would want to hide from the public -- unless what they are doing is not in the best interest of their constituents.
Republicans in the General Assembly learned a harsh political lesson in last November's election when they won only one of the statewide offices on the ballot. The Democratic sweep was the result of voters being weary of the GOP's heavy-handed governance of the state.
The Republican-controlled General Assembly would do well to deep six Rep. Setzer's amendment.