Government meetings should be conducted publicly.

The intent of Maine’s Freedom of Access law is clear and, while it may sometimes be inconvenient, lawmakers should not try to carve out exemptions with clever syntax and dubious names.

On Tuesday, Gov. Baldacci held a meeting with what his office has called an “informal working group” to discuss prospects for the Eastern Fine Paper Co. mill in Brewer. After about 15 minutes, the meeting was closed to the public and reporters were forced to leave.

According to the Bangor Daily News, which attempted to cover the meeting along with WVII-TV Channel 7, the meeting was announced on June 4 and had been widely publicized. It was held in a public building and included elected public officials, including the governor, Brewer’s mayor and a member of the city council – who also works for U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe – and members of Baldacci’s administration.

A spokesman for the governor’s office told the Bangor paper that the meeting was not subject to access laws because it is an “informal working group” and not a “task force.”

In a courtroom, such semantic arguments and parsed words might carry some weight. But they don’t with us.

Government officials should work at every turn to include the public in the business of running the state. Whenever possible, the governor and others who serve at the will of the state’s voters should look to expand access, not shut it down.

Gov. Baldacci said that the meeting had to be closed because participants were going to discuss specific companies that might be interested in the site, the Daily News reported. And the negotiations to lure those companies are fragile and public disclosure could put efforts in jeopardy.

No one wants to hurt the chances for Brewer to recover from Eastern’s closure. But closed meetings between federal, state, city and union officials don’t inspire public confidence. How could they when the public is shut out?

Collateral damage

Just the possibility that a cap could be placed on property taxes is causing damage to localities.

Lewiston, in a prudent move to assure a good rating for municipal bonds that will be sold this year, has been forced to spend about $153,000 on insurance to protect against the enormous drop in revenue that would follow a property tax cap. The money will come out of the proceeds of the bond.

Needless to say, that money could have been spent for greater public good if the ominous – and fiscally dangerous – tax cap proposal was not lurking on the political horizon.

Voters will decide in November whether to pass the referendum that would limit property taxes to $10 for every $1,000 of assessed value and roll values back to 1997 levels.

It’s a bad idea to set tax policy through broad referendum questions. This initiative, spearheaded by Carol Palesky, is no exception. Part of the legislation, according to Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court, is likely to be unconstitutional. If enacted, the property tax limits would cripple city and town governments.

In Lewiston, city property tax revenue would drop from about $40 million to $12.6 million, not enough to maintain important municipal services and fund schools.

Bond markets hate question marks. The looming tax cap is driving up costs and creating uncertainty. That’s another strike against a bad idea.

[email protected]