IA- Bills shaped at Statehouse with doors shut

I will skip a major portion of the article to get to the portion about sex offenders:

(Post by eAdvocate) 4-6-2009 Iowa:

Some Iowa lawmakers want to require public officials to be more transparent about new policies they are considering. Others want to mandate that the state disclose more information about the state budget.

But when it comes to being open about their own actions, state legislators' approach has increasingly been: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Legislators are hammering out issues, particularly contentious ones, in private caucuses and "working groups" rather than in public forums at the Capitol.

Open-government advocates complain the approach - used frequently this legislative session - is antithetical to the democratic process, squelches public input and can result in bad policy.

For three months, one group of legislators has wrangled in secret over how to tackle dicey sex offender legislation - with a 2010 election approaching and powerful interest groups demanding action. Leaders of that group say they are waiting for party leaders and the governor to sign off on their ideas before making proposed law changes public.

(Posted by eAdvocate)

"They might just as well put a bubble around the Capitol and duct-tape the doors shut," said Marty Ryan, a longtime lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. "They're leading us to a bad, bad place."

JUMPING FORWARD to relevant SO discussions:

They also encourage committee chairs to assemble working groups to hash out touchy bills in private, especially if openness is perceived as possibly putting seats at risk at election time.

"Some people are like, 'What's with the behind closed doors?' " said Rep. David Tjepkes, R-Gowrie, one of 10 legislators involved in a working group on the sex offender bill.

Tjepkes said his group's subject matter is sensitive by nature, necessitating talk about specific offenders and their victims. But he admits there's political gravity in saying the wrong thing in a crowd.

"I'd be naive and stupid to say some things in public," he said. "That's putting a head on the chopping block just to have the competition chop it off for you."

The Iowa Constitution says the doors of the House and Senate "shall be open, except on such occasions as may require secrecy." In practical application, that has meant legislative leaders decide for themselves when they want to make public policy decisions in private.

City councils and boards of supervisors are prohibited from going into closed sessions except for reasons prescribed by open-records law, but there are no limits to the reasons legislators may give in deciding to meet privately before voting on a bill.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said it's true legislators are holding more private meetings, and it's debatable whether that's a good thing. The move toward more secrecy, he said, has followed a move toward more cutthroat politics in the last 20 years.

While sunlight is good, he said, "the politics of public discussion has also damaged our ability to move good policy."

Case study: Secret plan for sex offender laws

One big drawback of such secrecy is becoming apparent this year: With just two or three weeks remaining in the session, the public is only beginning to hear details about major pieces of legislation - health care initiatives, tax plans, potential money for flood relief and new jobs - that stand to affect their lives.

A case in point: The sex offender working group has yet to hold a single public meeting on legislation to scale back the state's 2,000-foot residency requirement for sex offenders, create safe zones aimed at protecting children, and bring Iowa more in line with the federal Adam Walsh Act.

Legislators promise to unveil their measure for the first time this week in a public bipartisan subcommittee before it is voted on by the Senate.

Still, some people believe the hour may now be too late to hear from groups that have a major stake in the outcome and fix any problems in proposed legislation.

"I would be very concerned about the Legislature rushing forward ... without a measured look and input from groups with a major stake in what's happening," said Beth Barnhill of Iowa's Coalition Against Sexual Abuse. "We've made a lot of mistakes in Iowa."

States' efforts to comply with the Adam Walsh Act have caused controversy and headaches, so much so that Congress is reviewing the law. However, Iowa legislators have ignored a plea to have a multidisciplinary team evaluate implications for Iowa.

"It's a waste of state resources to implement strategies that don't work," complained Barnhill, who noted the state has already been given a year's reprieve to comply with the federal law.

Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, and Rep. Clel Baudler, R-Greenfield, acknowledged last week that they have been waiting to get Culver and all four caucuses in the House and Senate to agree on the legislation first.

"If (Culver's) not on board, everybody's gonna run like a chicken," Baudler said. "But don't worry, there's still time. People will have a chance to look at it."

Baudler acknowledged, however, that it was unlikely lawmakers would accept amendments after the amended bill goes public.

Ryan said that when lawmakers don't listen to experts and others with a significant stake, they come up with legislation like the 2,000-foot law - a highly controversial measure passed in 2002 that aims to reduce child sex abuse by prohibiting convicted offenders from living near child care centers and schools.

Almost universally, law enforcement officials and experts say the law doesn't work. But Ryan said it was passed late in the session with too little debate.

"The only vote against it in the Senate was Sen. Johnie Hammond from Ames," Ryan said. "She predicted we would have colonies of sex offenders - and she predicted correctly."

Gronstal said that bill was a better example of the "radioactiveness" of dealing with some touchy issues with all eyes watching.

In the end, he said, it was almost impossible not to pass the legislation. "There was the sense that if you voted against the bill, you didn't care about protecting kids," he said.

..News Source.. by LEE ROOD