Is it something in the water?

Seriously, what is it in this town? It seems as though everywhere we turn, government officials are attempting to exclude citizens from the process.

A while back I wrote about a local government entity that was considering a "Confidentiality Agreement" that would prevent its members from discussing certain public business publicly. In defense of the agreement, a representative of the entity informed me that the Great Falls Tribune had signed a confidentiality agreement, a 'fact' that Gary Moseman of the Tribune flatly denied.

I am now in a position to divulge a bit more information about this whole affair. The entity that is considering the Confidentiality Agreement is the Great Falls International Airport Authority.

The Confidentiality Agreement can be found here.

I am not sure how one can reconcile a "confidentiality agreement" among members of a public board with Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution: "No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure." Regardless of how helpful confidentiality might seem to the operations of a public board, the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that public information is just that...public. The fact that secrets might make a board's job easier, or might make the board more efficient is of no concern. Public officials cannot pick and choose what laws to follow depending on what their preferences are.

Apparently I am in good company on this thought, as Cascade County Attorney Brant Light sent a legal opinion to the Airport Authority (Find it here.) His opinion is clear:

"Therefore, it is my legal opinion, as the Cascade County Attorney, that a confidentiality agreement among the Great Falls International Airport Authority's Board and Chair is illegal and unconstitutional. It is contrary to both the 'Open Meeting' and 'Right to Know' laws. A confidentiality agreement in this context would block the public's right to participation in the Airport Authority and essentially move its deliberations behind closed doors."

I have it on reasonably good authority that this issue has created some division among the members of the Airport Authority. It is my understanding that there are at least some board members who recognize that it is a violation of their obligations to the public to contractually limit their ability to share public information.

I am not unsympathetic to the difficulty the constraints of public involvement place on the Airport's Administration. Public scrutiny inevitably makes their jobs more difficult and it is beyond cavil that our present Director, Cynthia Schultz, and her staff have done a magnificent job with the Airport.

But Constitutional mandates cannot be overlooked in the name of expedience. It is not the place of an appointed board or a hired administrator to decide that the subjective merits of their positions outweigh the collective determination of the drafters. Attempts to fashion a veil to obscure the scrutiny of the rest of us, contractually or otherwise, no matter how well intentioned, must fail.

This matter will come on for consideration at the Authority's meeting sometime on Tuesday afternoon. "[R]emember that [the Airport Authority] board appreciates participation from the public." Either show up at the meeting or contact the board's members and ask them to vote against this Confidentiality Agreement.