politics@roanoke.com
A guide to political news, commentary and resources in Southwest Virginia

Preston Bryant is a Republican who has represented Lynchburg and part of Amherst County in the Virginia House of Delgates since 1996.

The right to privacy

By PRESTON BRYANT
FEB. 1, 2004

For as long as an elephant can remember, state legislators when in session have been meeting behind closed doors to discuss the political and legislative matters of the day. Republicans have always done it, and Democrats have always done it.

Over the past year, though, the propriety of these private caucuses has been questioned. The press has long found their exclusion from the meetings irritating, feeling they had a right to sit in on them given a state law saying gatherings of three or more elected officials from the same body should be open to all.

Last year, Democrats in the House of Delegates threw open the doors to their previously closed caucuses, and (for some reason) the media regularly attended. This year, their meetings are still open. Senate Democrats, however, as well as House and Senate Republicans have always kept their respective meetings private, and they still do.

So it wasn’t long before Del. Chip Woodrum, a Roanoke Democrat and expert on the state’s Freedom of Information Act, shot off a letter to GOP Attorney General Jerry Kilgore seeking an official opinion on the legality of these closed meetings. Could state legislators, Woodrum wanted to know, legally meet in private behind the big oak doors of the state capitol and discuss the people’s business?

What Kilgore opined, it seems, is that to the extent these meetings are political in nature, and not purely policy-oriented ones where actual votes are discussed, then legislators can keep to themselves. The law, you see, doesn’t really address “political” caucuses, which really is what these gatherings are. After all, House and Senate Republicans and Democrats pay dues – from private, not public funds – to belong to what can easily be considered private, political associations.

So Kilgore’s ruling, while acknowledging the existence of gray areas, was a correct one. Nevertheless, the media howled. Woodrum, who’s since retired, did too.

When House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, and Senate Republicans retreat to their four separate caucuses, which usually begin a half-hour or so before the delegates and senators officially enter their ornate chambers for the day’s work, they usually discuss little more than the politics that may or may not surround the bills they’re about to debate. Sometimes a special guest may pop in to see them, just as U.S. Sen. George Allen did about a week ago to a rare joint meeting of House and Senate Republicans.

It really can’t be legitimately said or intimated that Virginia’s legislature operates in anything other than a fully open environment. Media folk have walked the halls of the capitol about every day of the nearly four centuries the General Assembly has been in existence. The year-round committee and study group meetings are open to any and all who are bored enough to want to attend them. When the legislature is in session, it’s not unusual at all for party leaders to have regular coffee klatches with reporters, where hardly any subject is off limits.

And, to boot, what few political tidbits discussed in private that should be kept secret rarely are. Party caucuses are known, generally, to leak like sieves.

But let’s get back to the central question: Should House and Senate Democrats and Republicans be able to legally meet in private, especially in taxpayer-owned buildings, and discuss what some might suggest is “official” business?

In a word, yes.

Arguably, it’s in the public’s interest that those running the show – i.e., the majority party – be able to meet and discuss in private to plot the best political strategy to achieve maximum operational efficiency. And if the minority party also wants to meet behind closed doors to sketch out what they deem the best way to move things along, then they also should be able to do so.

Let’s look at a few hypotheticals.

Two delegates are walking down a capitol hallway talking about a piece of legislation. They bump into a couple of other delegates and a senator, and the five of them get into a 20-minute conversation on the policy ramifications of the bill they’re discussing. They then conclude that the issue warrants a more in-depth discussion by a handful more delegates and senators and arrange for the larger group to gather in one of the legislature’s many conference rooms for what’ll be at least an hour-long meeting.

Was the first informal, 20-minute hallway “meeting” a FOIA violation? And was the larger, more organized conference room meeting an even bigger violation? Can you legitimately say that in either instance the legislators were willfully engaging in scurrilous activity?

It’s not unusual for House and Senate leaders and their top lieutenants – in both parties – to gather on Sunday evenings when the Assembly is in session to discuss the many matters they’ll face in the week ahead. And sometimes they’ll have such meetings in early-morning hours over coffee and doughnuts. Should the press be able to pull up a chair and take notes on every word as both politics and policy – often indistinguishable – are discussed? Heck, would they even want to?

And what about Gov. Mark Warner’s meetings with small groups of legislators to discuss ongoing matters of state? He’s huddled with small groups of delegates and senators – from both parties – any number of times over the past couple of months to talk about tax reform. Sometimes, they’ll steal away to a local eatery to chew the political fat. Should the press be able to barge in and pull up a chair? If so, would their presence encourage or suppress honest, frank discussion?

Such are the head-scratching dilemmas often faced. Perhaps that’s why House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, has offered up legislation to let the Joint Rules Committee set the guidelines by which House and Senate members, whether Republicans or Democrats, can meet privately in their caucuses or elsewhere, should they want to do so. If Griffith’s proposal is passed by a majority in both the full House and Senate, then the rules to be established will be clear and the gray areas noted in Kilgore’s opinion will be made black and white.

It’s in the best interest of the Commonwealth that legislators be allowed to meet in private to discuss both political and policy matters. Doing so will keep the political operations efficient and produce better public policy for all.

Let’s hope Griffith’s proposal is passed. Let’s hope common sense prevails.

Post a message to Preston Bryant's message board

The Bryant Archive

The real value of Howard Dean

George Allen and his penguins

In defense of slush

Investing in economic development

Processing money

Kilgore shows some spunk

Western Virginia weekend and "A Tidewater Morning"

Economics and taxes: Byrd to Warner

The path of tax reform