Provides an exception to the Open Meetings Law relative to attorney-client privilege. (8/1/16)
The bill, effective August 1, 2016, alters the landscape of open government laws by explicitly recognizing attorney-client privilege as a legitimate reason for holding executive sessions. This is expected to empower public officials and entities to seek legal guidance without compromising sensitive discussions related to their duties. However, it may also raise concerns among advocacy groups about the potential for increased secrecy, as discussions that could previously have been held in public could now occur behind closed doors.
Senate Bill 285, proposed by Senator Ward, aims to amend the existing Open Meetings Law by introducing an exception that allows public bodies to hold executive sessions to discuss matters that are subject to attorney-client privilege. This change is intended to provide legal counsel with the necessary privacy to advise public bodies without the fear of public disclosure, thereby encouraging more frank communication and more effective governance. The bill received bipartisan support, reflecting a common interest in balancing transparency with the need for confidentiality in legal matters.
Overall sentiment surrounding SB 285 reflects a recognition of the necessity for legal protections within the framework of public governance. Proponents argue that the bill would enhance the functioning of public bodies by allowing necessary legal discussions to take place privately, which they believe is essential for effective decision-making. However, some critics voice apprehension about the implications for transparency and accountability, fearing that this could lead to reduced public scrutiny of government actions.
Notable points of contention include fears that the bill could be misused to exclude the public from important discussions, undermining the principles of open government. Legislative debate highlighted concerns that while attorney-client privilege is crucial for candid legal advice, it could also be leveraged to shield potentially controversial decisions from public view. The challenge lies in finding an appropriate balance between necessary confidentiality in legal matters and the public's right to know.