Transparency and openness in government should never be taken for granted. That is why the closed-door meetings taking place in Montpelier over education reform and consolidation strike us as extremely misguided. A small group will decide the fate of the state’s 280 school districts. That, in our opinion, is not open government. Those involved in the meetings have said they are simply doing what any department in the state would do when someone walks down the hall and calls a staff meeting. We disagree.

Decisions that affect virtually every town in the state should not be made behind closed doors. We can’t say that enough. The Education Challenges Design team, and commissioner Villaseca, must open up their meetings for public input. Without that public input, whatever plans they come up with are an affront to our democratic principles.

It wasn’t that long ago that former Vice President Dick Cheney held a series of closed door meetings with oil and energy industry insiders to form an energy policy for the country. Just look at how well that went. The boom and bust of Enron, the Iraq invasion, and a number of other missteps for the country soon followed. Democracy is not always pretty. In fact, it can be downright messy sometimes. If open meetings don’t fit someone’s time line, or idea of what needs to be done, so be it. That’s the price we as a society pay. We support the Dover School Board in their efforts to shed light on the design team meetings. Public policy demands public scrutiny, however dysfunctional that may make the system.

Along the same lines, we are also disheartened by the Legislature’s headlong move to exempt donors who contribute over $10,000 to state universities from public disclosure. Ross Connelly, editor of the Hardwick Gazette, is a longtime advocate for open records. In a recent editorial he wrote about the Legislature’s plans. In part, Connelly said:

“Vermont state law gives people the right to see public records concerning matters conducted by public bodies. The law states ‘it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment.’

“When the law was first enacted in 1976, 16 specific exemptions of records were listed. The number rose to 134 by 2001 and jumped to 197 in 2005. As of the end of February this year, there were 230. Soon, there is a good chance there will be 231. H-331, a bill to amend the state’s public records law, took a quick ride through the Vermont Senate in mid-February, and an even quicker pass through the House last week. The measure will allow those who donate $10,000 or more in a year to any of the three public state colleges, Vermont Technical College, the Community College of Vermont, the University of Vermont, or the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, to remain anonymous if they wish.

“The anonymous donor becomes an unseen face at the table. Unseen and unaccountable, but one whose donation has the potential to affect all taxpayers. Without transparency, policy decisions that could affect taxpayers from the top of Vermont to its southern border could be impacted by an individual and an advancement officer who are able to arrange for a donation behind closed doors. A new building may require local zoning approval. Private residences or land may be bought for a site for a new building, which would reduce a municipality’s Grand List and increase the local property tax rate. Tuitions could rise for all students because of the need to increase the institution’s budget to maintain the new building. Who is sitting at the table when the decision is debated? An anonymous donor can sit there, unseen and unaccountable.

“Some people in support of adding an anonymous donor exemption to the state’s public records law say a donor’s privacy needs to be protected. The amendment only offers anonymity to those giving $10,000 or more in a year. Why do people with money need special treatment? Since when is putting a price tag on transparency a part of the democratic process?

“That is not how the paths of public higher education should be mapped, that is not how public policy should be formulated, and that is not how a democracy should function. The public’s right to know the truth, transparency, and accountability are building blocks for democracy’s foundation. They must not be stepchildren when the public’s business is conducted. Citizens need to speak up to their legislators and let them know granting one, then two, then 231 exemptions to the public records law, with the last a privilege for a small few, is undemocratic and has to stop.

“The public’s right to know is fundamental.”

We couldn’t agree more. We urge all of our readers to contact their legislator to voice their opinions on these issues, Only if there is a large enough outcry will our leaders get the message that citizens and voters demand openness and transparency in their government.