The Kansas Legislature decided it prefers open meetings rather than closed-door sessions by its utility regulating Corporation Commission. A similar measure is under consideration in the Oklahoma Legislature.
The Kansas House of Representatives killed a bill that would have exempted the Kansas Corporation Commission from some provisions of that state’s Open Meetings Act. It would have allowed the three commissioners to handle certain issues without notifying the public. KCC Chairman Andrew French contended it would make his agency more efficient.
The Kansas House was leaning in favor of the proposal until Manhattan GOP Rep. Kenny Titus stood up and called the bill a “dangerous precedent,” according to Kansas Reflector.
The news organization quoted Titus as telling his fellow legislators that what the KCC does in regulating monopolies deserves more – not less – transparency. “I fear that once transparency protections are removed, this body will find it exceedingly difficult to restore them. …[E]xempting their most important work from the Open Meetings Act is not an appropriate solution.”
Vote switching began and when the count was finalized, the bill died on a 38-82 vote.
A similar measure – House Bill 2367 by Ardmore Republican Rep. Tammy Townley and Tulsa Sen.
Dave Rader – has already cleared an initial hurdle in the Oklahoma Legislature.
HB 2367 was endorsed 13-0 on Feb. 29 by the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; supporters included Reps. Trey Caldwell (R-Lawton) and Brad Boles (R-Marlow). The bill is now on general order, awaiting a floor vote by the 101-member House of Representatives.
The version of the bill approved by the House committee provides that although the three-member Oklahoma Corporation Commission is subject to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, the commissioners could discuss – behind closed door and even if a quorum were present – administrative, operational, and procedural matters “provided the discussions do no t address appropriation of Corporation Commission funds and no official action is taken.” Votes would have to be taken in an open meeting.
The proposed law would forbid the commissioners from discussing “pending legislative matters” unless those conversations occurred in a meeting open to the public.
However, opponents of the proposed exemptions point out that when public officials are behind closed doors and out of the spotlight, the public has no way to determine exactly what those officials talk about. Moreover, there is nothing other than their consciences to prevent them from discussing whatever topics they want to.