The ladies and gentlemen of the Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee need to reach for their checkbooks.

They owe the state a $500 fine for holding what appears to have been an illegal meeting behind closed doors, with the intent being to shut out those pesky members of the public with an interest in what was being discussed.

The committee met Feb. 18 to discuss a plan to regulate slot machines at harness racing tracks. The public was purposely excluded. Needless to say, slot machines are of interest to a lot of people.

Rep. Roger Landry, D-Sanford, explained to the Bangor Daily News in a story published Feb. 21 the reasoning behind the meeting: “What they hope to do is have a situation conducive to good, basic communication versus a room that’s jampacked with lobbyists, investors and not to mention reporters.”

Welcome to democracy. Jampacked committee rooms occur because people care about what’s being discussed.

Secret government may grease the wheels for legislation, but seldom, if ever, does good law develop from the shadows of backroom meetings and deals.

Rep. Kevin Glynn, R-South Portland and a member of the committee, lodged a formal complaint Feb. 20 about the meeting. In his complaint, Glynn noted the high level of pressure placed on the committee by interested parties, including the governor, and cited several past committee meetings also hidden from the public.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act is clear. Almost all meetings of legislative committees are open to the public. The only exceptions are for the discussion of legal or personnel matters.

Speaker of the House Pat Colwell says he will investigate the allegations. But the matter shouldn’t end there. The Attorney General’s Office is charged with enforcing freedom of information laws and should launch its own investigation.

Leaders in the House and Senate and the attorney general need to make a strong statement that the law cannot be ignored when it becomes inconvenient.

By statute, fines can be as much as $500 for this offense. The law – and the penalties for breaking it – should be enforced.


Trusting the numbers


President Bush’s credibility took a beating last week.

Questions about his service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, overly optimistic predictions on job creation and the ongoing debacle about any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq took their toll on the president’s popularity.

A group of more than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, just piled on with a truly troubling report. According to the group, assembled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Bush administration has systematically ignored, distorted or hidden scientific facts that run counter to its policy initiatives.

There’s no doubt that politics, to some measure, were behind the group’s announcement. The Union of Concerned Scientists has found itself on opposite sides from the administration on environmental, health and research issues, to name just a few areas.

Nonetheless, the claims are disturbing.

The scientists point to specific examples. They say findings on climate change, mercury emissions and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and Web sites and that people are being appointed to advisory panels for their ideological bent more than their scientific credentials.

Lawmakers depend on government data to make informed decisions about policy. If we can’t trust the data, then how can we trust the decisions?

Congress has responsibility for the oversight of federal agencies. Part of that responsibility is to ensure good science is not undermined to promote ideological goals.
[email protected]