Publically Elected Equates to Publically Open

     When constituents elect an official to office, it is assumed that individual has been selected due to their ability to best represent their people.  With this implication comes the expectancy of the elected officials to be honest and open in all that they do.  One can not expect to be elected and then conduct business behind closed doors.  Results of such action are many, few of which are for the better.  Certainly, there are certain issues that are best kept out of public ear shot; military funding being a good example.  With that said, more often than not it is in the best interest of the officials and the public to maintain open doors on a given issue.

Even at the municipal level elected officials have a level of power that much succeeds that of the average citizen.  Decisions they make can heavily influence business, criminal law, and even reach the federal level when issues escalate to the level of the Supreme Court.  For example; if officials meet in private to discuss the acquisition of land to create a new landfill, those that own the surrounding land are sure to be effected in their decision.  By ensuring that elected officials must present these topics to the public produces the opportunity for those with owning this theoretical land to object and make an effort to maintain their property value or receive proper compensation from the government.   

       Six years ago fifteen Texas officials were convicted of conducting business in private, and attempted to evade charges stating that it was a violation of the First Amendment to force covered issues to be available to the public.  The case made its way to the Supreme Court where the argument of the officials was said to be "nonsensical."  I, along with the article from the Houston Chronicle, agree with this decision.  It is absurd to believe that it is an infringement on anyone's First Amendment's rights to make any communication public.  Following the intent of the First Amendment leads one to believe that, if anything, it pushes for openness in government meetings.  Of further distraught to all should be the fact that, being public officials, taxpayers have been footing the bill for this case for the past six years.  The Houston Chronicle has done an excellent job in bringing this issue into the public's eye and properly addressing it.

    It appears the threat of a $500 fine and six weeks imprisonment is not enough to prevent officials from attempting to meet in private and govern Texas.  It is now on the shoulders of the constituents to take action against closed door politics by looking for some honest officials in future elections, and much credit is due to the Houston Chronicle for bringing such travesty to the attention of all.         

Read the original article here.