By Zaldy Dandan
Variety Editor

IN the mid-19th century, Lord Palmerston, the British prime minister, described a particular territorial dispute in Europe as so complicated that only three men had ever fully understood it — a prince, who was dead; a professor, who had become insane; and Palmerston himself, who had forgotten it.
Before we reach that unfortunate stage in the ongoing saga on Capital Hill regarding the application of the Open Government Act to the branch of government that passed the law only to later exempt itself from it — let me give you a recap.
It all started when citizen advocates led by the tireless Tina Sablan solicited signatures for a petition calling for more transparency in government, specifically the full application of the Open Government Act to the Legislature. My other friend, Rep. Cinta M. Kaipat, then introduced her bill, H.B. 15-269, which was supposed to do what the advocates were, well, advocating. But the final version of the bill was only about the disclosure of the lawmakers’ financial records, and when the House discussed the measure, Rep. Ray N. Yumul motioned that they go into “executive,” that is, closed-door, session, which they did.
Imagine that. Here are lawmakers so in favor of transparency in government that they shut the doors on the public to discuss the urgent need for such transparency. Biba 15th House! Biba!
The bill as passed by the House — unanimously — states that only the individual lawmaker is authorized to release his financial information. Tina notes that if only the individual lawmaker can disclose his financial records, “how would we know if the disclosure is full or selective? And what happens if they don’t disclose? That’s not clear at all.” But Cinta says the same information can still be obtained from the finance secretary. So what is the point of Ray’s amendment? No one will know. The House members were in executive session when they discussed it.
And this is why the advocates and this newspaper want a FULL application of the Open Government Act (which I still refuse to call by its initials because OGA sounds like I’m trying to say “Oh God!” after having my two front teeth pulled out without anesthesia.)
Two lawmakers say they share the advocates’ concern: Senators Paul, the law’s original author, and Crisostimo. They introduced a bill, S.B. 15-96, which would apply the Open Government Act not only to the Legislature’s financial records, but all public records, which means “that the Legislature would have to issue public notices and agendas before sessions are held, would have to publicly justify emergency and executive sessions, and would have to justify any denials of requests for information.” This means, Tina adds, “greater access to information (with narrow exemptions for personal or confidential records as provided in the law), no more surprise sessions (or fewer of them, anyway), and an actual schedule of sessions with agendas so that the public (and the legislators themselves) can adequately prepare if they wish to attend sessions and submit comments.”
The advocates want guaranteed access to “contracts, memos, minutes of executive sessions once action has been taken, reports, communications between legislators and all the various special interest groups asking for donations, favors, etc.,” as well as “sufficient public notice and agendas for sessions, and justification for emergency and executive sessions…adequate documentation of those sessions…and penalties if denials of requests for information are found insufficient by the courts.”
Last week, the Senate had a session supposedly to discuss S.B. 15-96 and for an eyewitness account of what happened on that day, I refer to you the letters of Tina’s dad, Eugene, and Senator Frica which we published yesterday. They can be summed up in one sentence: “It was terrible.”
Some senators say that upon the advice of their legal counsel, they dumped the original version of S.B. 16-96 and will now pass a bill similar to Cinta’s but without Ray’s inspired amendment.
Under pressure from the Open Government Act advocates who have collected more than 2,000 signatures of registered voters, the senators have also allowed their legal counsel — now caught in the crossfire — to disclose his legal opinion about the matter. I’ve read it and I do not find it convincing. Even the legal counsel says it’s not air-tight. True I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure that the advocates can get their own legal opinion disputing the Senate legal counsel’s.
So here’s my point. In the issue of more government transparency, lawmakers cannot forever hide behind their legal counsel’s OPINION. They must have their own and they should be willing to disclose and defend it. If they don’t want full disclosure as demanded by taxpayers who pay their salaries, then they should say so.

Send feedback to zdtion@lycos.com