Editorials/Columns
All in all, Virginia has peppered the Freedom of Information Act with 172 different exemptions under which transparency is prevented. Many of these exemptions are understandable: closed meetings for personnel issues such as hiring or firing, protected documents that show security plans. But many might not, in fact, be necessary. Circumstances might have changed since their enaction, rendering them unwarranted.
They might be the result of “mission creep” — the slow, steady, cumulative advance of changes that might have once seemed justifiable in isolation, but have now proved to be overburdensome in aggregate. Or perhaps they were simply bad ideas to begin with. Appropriately, the General Assembly is moving toward a re-evaluation of these 172 exemptions.
Daily Progress
The purported “ethics reform” bills sliding easily through the Virginia legislature include a curious, little-noticed provision. Under language approved by the Senate and House of Delegates, legislators would no longer be obliged to have their financial disclosure forms notarized. Why is that important? It means lawmakers would be charged only with a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, for making a false statement about their investments or gifts they’ve received from lobbyists. Well, isn’t that convenient.
Robert McCartney, Washington Post
Some city of Beaufort, S.C., officials say they will consider formal training to teach board and commission members about public-meeting and public-records law. The need for instruction was made starkly evident when the Historic District Review Board violated the S.C. Freedom of Information Act byadjourning a recent meeting and continuing to discuss board business with a quorum present.
Hilton Head Island Packet
I have been a fan of National Review and its founder, the late William F. Buckley ever since I was a teenager. No single publication, aside from the Bible, has had a more profound impact on my thinking and my worldview than the magazine founded in 1955. Indeed, without it my views and opinions would probably not be as refined as they. And now I find the magazine under attack from the unlikeliest of sources – “Scientist” Michael Mann. Professor Mann, most famous for his now disputed and thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” graph that once upon a time proved mankind’s influence on the earth’s temperature increases (and thus our responsibility for global warming), is suing the magazine for defamation. In a column Mark Steyn took on Mann and his claims, and accused him of perpetuating a fraud on society. He then took his attacks a step further by quoting another column which referred to Mann as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” Tasteless? Absolutely. But defamation? Hardly. It’s nearly impossible to prove defamation cases, next to none are ever won. Really, the bottom line here is that it doesn’t matter if Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Richard Lowery or whomever National Review staffer wrote a highly intelligent, thought-provoking piece on climate change or whether the entire piece in question was merely a list of insults leveled against him (insults such as humorless buffoon, half-wit, nimrod, red diaper doper baby, immediately spring to mind but I digress), the issue at hand is one of freedom of speech.
Carl Tate, News Virginian |