House panel OKs opening up advisory group meetings

One after another, representatives of schools, counties and townships testified that government advisory task forces should be able to meet in secret.

But after nearly two hours of debate, a House panel Tuesday voted to open those meetings to the public.

"Why wouldn't we have a presumption that there's an open meeting?" asked Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley.

The local government representatives said requiring appointed advisory groups to hold open meetings could stifle citizen involvement and expose volunteers to lawsuits.

"You're going to have a lot of work that simply will not get done," said Kent Sulem, an attorney for the Minnesota Association of Townships.

But Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, who pushed for opening task force meetings, said transparency is needed for the public to understand how policy is created. Paymar said the recommendations of task forces are all too often adopted with little debate by elected officials.

"They make recommendations behind closed doors and 'boom,' you've got a decision," Paymar said.

The language amends the state Open Meeting Law by specifying that it covers groups appointed by government units that provide "advice or recommendations." Advisory groups made up soley of government employees or students would not need to comply.

To allay concerns that citizen groups could be sued for misunderstanding the law, Paymar exempted them from penalties under the Open Meeting Law.

The amendment alters a bill drafted at the request of the administration of Gov. Tim Pawlenty that would have shortened the Open Meeting Law. It made no explicit reference to advisory groups. A similar measure is pending in the Senate.

Critics of those proposals said they would encourage government units to sidestep the Open Meeting Law by using advisory panels to recommend policies later rubber-stamped by elected officials.

Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, who heads a Department of Administration division that helped craft the bills, said they merely clarified the statute as interpreted by state court rulings over the years.

He testified that school boards rely on advisory groups to discuss curriculum changes, recommend budget cuts or propose a building program. He added that waiving penalties under the Open Meeting Law wouldn't prevent lawsuits.