Essential Estrogen

Rep. Pam Jochum (D-Dubuque), chair of the State Government Committee, appeared on WOI-TV last night to tout her intentions of strengthening existing open records law.

Typically, when someone begins to discuss making more information public record, I automatically assume a position of standing ovation. After further reading of House Study Bill 38, however, I'm wary.

This bill calls for the full disclosure of information pertaining to individuals who are being considered for appointment, hiring, performance evaluations or discharge is being discussed by a government body.

Currently, the law allows government bodies who are considering personnel matters to move into a closed session. Closed sessions are, as the name implies, closed to the general public and press. Although the current law states this should be done "when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to the individual's reputation" and if "the individual requests a closed session," those who attend open meetings will tell you that very few government bodies behave in this manner. Whenever an agenda item launches into the discussion of personnel matters of any sort 9 out of 10 government bodies will move into closed session.

The new bill requires the individual being discussed (regardless of reason) to request a closed session in writing and provide reason for the request. The body must then determine if such a close session is necessary to prevent "needless and irreparable injury to the individual's reputation."

It is interesting to note which lobbyist groups have stated opposition or approval to this bill. Most are currently undecided as to their feelings toward the proposed change in legislation. For those who have taken a stance, it seems this legislation pits two predominantly left-leaning groups against one another. The first group to voice its displeasure with the legislation was AFSCME Iowa Council 61. One of the first to state its approval was the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. The only other group to come out against the proposed legislation is the Iowa Hospital Association. Those on the approving side are the Iowa Broadcasters Association, Iowa Newspaper Association and Citizens Aide/Ombudsman.

In total, this bill takes the matter of closed session out of a government body's hands. For better or for worse, the state will be dictating the body hold such discussions in public unless the individual being discussed acts to prevent it. Even then, the individual must show just cause for the closed session. Even if the request is deemed worthy, the body is still required to release the individual's name, city of residence, employment history and educational history. (Within the bill the language is unclear if this requirement is for any applicant, appointee, person being reviewed or person being reprimanded or if it is limited to only final applicants.)

It is such ambiguity which makes this bill questionable. Should all information of applicants for positions be made public record, how will that affect the applicant's current employment? While already facing a shortage of school administrators, would school districts have an even more difficult time in persuading applicants to come to Iowa with such new laws in place? What if I'm an employee and had to take extended periods of time away from work because I suffered from AIDS? Would I really want the particulars of my situation discussed in open session? Would my reasoning for wanting to keep it private be seen as "necessary"?

In all, it's good to note this is a study bill. Obviously, our state legislators, Jochum included, need to consider all the ramifications of this initiative.