Municipal association would leave citizens in the dark about government’s business.

We own government and all of its records because we are government and its business is our business.

It’s a revered rule that dates back to the foundation of this country and was drafted precisely because King George preferred secrecy over openness. He restricted access to records, held meetings behind closed doors and organized meetings far from population centers to make it difficult for a traveling public to attend.

We revolted. And we organized a government that valued access over privacy.

In the years since the crown was run out of this land, our government has slowly but steadily marched toward restricting access to records, holding meetings behind closed doors and organizing meetings in ways that inconvenience the public. We’re not quite back to where we started, but we’re getting dangerously close.

Maine is doing something about that.

Last year, the Legislature approved a resolve to form a committee to study compliance with Maine’s Freedom of Access Laws. That 16-member committee met several times last fall and, by nearly unanimous agreement, made nine recommendations to the Joint Committee on Judiciary to improve Maine law and preserve public access.

The production of these recommendations may seem ordinary, but it is not.

This was no routine study committee. The diverse makeup of the committee, which included representatives from Maine’s media, schools, town offices, police departments, public, county government, the Legislature and the Attorney General’s Office, made this a focused exercise in understanding and compromise, an exercise in promotion of public access and protection of personal privacy, in finding solutions to conflicts that hound citizens and public officials. There was a lot of disagreement and building consensus wasn’t easy, which makes the resulting work a valuable product.

This committed group of vocal citizens crafted a standard by which to measure all existing and future exceptions to Maine’s right to know laws, agreed to test a pilot program to provide a liaison between citizens and government to settle freedom of information disputes, set standard fees for photocopying public records and backed the privacy of all public employees by recommending that personal home phones, e-mail addresses and street addresses be protected from public disclosure. A number of other ideas were left on the table for future discussion because the group couldn’t come to agreement, which is not too surprising since the people around this particular table are often at odds, but what was agreed to was done dutifully and deliberately.

This work was done largely out of the public eye, but done for the public good.

That’s what makes Maine Municipal Association’s decision to spit in the study committee’s eye so disturbing.

MMA sat on this committee. It was well represented by a diligent Richard Flewelling, one of the association’s staff attorneys. Flewelling attended every meeting and was involved in every discussion. In fact, some of the final recommendations resulted from his worthy arguments.

On Thursday, the study committee had an opportunity to present its recommendations to the Judiciary Committee, which may consider advancing them to legislation. A number of study committee members attended the presentation in a show of support for their work.

Along comes Geoff Herman, director of state and federal relations for the MMA.

Herman may not have been sporting a royal frock at Thursday’s session, but there was a remarkable resemblance to King George.

On behalf of the Maine Municipal Association’s Legislative Policy Committee, he spoke against nearly all of the recommendations. He acknowledged that MMA had a say on the committee, but its legislative policy committee decided to ignore the association’s participation and strike out on its own.

This seemingly unfounded decision to split from final recommendations after they have been made is confusing. Worse, it’s insulting to those who took their legislative charge to study Maine’s access laws and recommend improvements very seriously, spending enormous time and considerable effort at work.

The study committee was a body of equal voices, not unlike the American model of good government. It has been stained by MMA’s astonishing lack of respect for that work.

In making his arguments against the study committee’s recommendations, Herman frequently suggested that municipalities would be burdened, and the safeguards and improvements were not necessary because citizens aren’t complaining. Put a scepter in his hand, and the resemblance to the British Crown ideal of government lording over its people is complete.

Judith Meyer is managing editor/days at the Sun Journal and a member of the Committee to Study Compliance with Maine’s Freedom of Access Laws. The recommendations made by the study committee are available at: www.state.me.us/legis/opla/reports2.htm.