HB 1048 Lets Local Governments Keep More Secrets About Cops, Jails, Emergency Response Resources

Senator Al Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen) claims he’s all about transparency. But he hasn’t posted any public comment on the Legislative Session so far, and he’s co-sponsoring a bill to help local governments keep more secrets.

House Bill 1048 would add to the excuses public bodies can use to kick the public out and meet behind closed doors. Specifically, it would add to SDCL 1-25-2 a sixth category of exceptions to our open-meeting law: “Discussing information listed in subdivisions 1-27-1.5(8) and 1-27-1.5(17).”

Even the text of HB 1048 manages not to be transparent. Every existing condition for closing a meeting to the public in SDCL 1-25-2 is stated explicitly: discussing personnel matters, discussing student discipline, consulting with legal counsel on pending lawsuits, prepping for contract negotiations, discussing marketing or pricing strategies. HB 1048 follows the too-frequent federal practice of turning statute into an opaque tangle of statutory references that makes no sense on facial reading.

We have to turn to the cited statute and dig through its 27 subpoints to find the items Novstrup and the other sponsors of HB 1048 want to keep secret from us:

(8) Information solely pertaining to protection of the security of public or private property and persons on or within public or private property, such as specific, unique vulnerability assessments or specific, unique response plans, either of which is intended to prevent or mitigate criminal acts, emergency management or response, or public safety, the public disclosure of which would create a substantial likelihood of endangering public safety or property; computer or communications network schema, passwords, and user identification names; guard schedules; lock combinations; or any blueprints, building plans, or infrastructure records regarding any building or facility that expose or create vulnerability through disclosure of the location, configuration, or security of critical systems;

…(17) Any emergency or disaster response plans or protocols, safety or security audits or reviews, or lists of emergency or disaster response personnel or material; any location or listing of weapons or ammunition; nuclear, chemical, or biological agents; or other military or law enforcement equipment or personnel; [SDCL 1-27-1.5, excerpts].

These are among the conditions that exempt documents from our open-records laws. But somehow keeping these matters open to public scrutiny in council meetings has not facilitated any terrorist attacks or other public chaos. There are surely specific security practices and emergency response procedures that don’t need to be broadcast, but HB 1049 would allow city councils and county commissions to kick us out of any discussion of the size and design of the local jail, how much we’re spending on police gear and what kind of gear we’re buying, what personnel and materiel our local governments have available to respond to floods and fires, and just what we plan to do with any Keystone XL protestors (ah, are we getting to the nub of the issue?).

When our new Governor has promised to be all about transparency, HB 1048 seems to head unnecessarily in the opposite direction, shutting the public out of deliberations over important public policy issues. Let’s preserve what tenuous transparency we enjoy in this state and vote down HB 1048