Caveat has posted an interesting essay written by three Cal State Sacramento professors on the anatomy of how many areas are pushing through certain types of canine legislation.
Here's the abstract:
An open process for drafting legislation would assure that from the onset all camps are heard from and all data considered.” Sunshine” or open meeting laws are in place to assure this. Instead of this happening, proponents of special-interest ordinances are being advised on websites and at legislative workshops to establish “coalitions” or “taskforces” which are independent of the legislative body of the municipality. Thus they are not subject to the open meeting laws and sunshine laws which exist. City or county staff is co-opted and a proposed ordinance is presented by staff. Public trust in government is eroded when legislation to be proposed is drafted in private andvotes are solicited in private without public knowledge or debate, and without those opposed being given sufficient warning to garner opposition or participate in the process. Such a situation operates within the guidelines of the letter of the sunshine principle, but not within the spirit of the sunshine principle, for the legislation is the product of a private coalition where openness, inclusion, and unanimity is falsely maintained.. Not honoring the spirit as well as the letter of sunshine laws allows special interests to hijack local government. It's an interesting read -- you can catch the whole document here. I've never been comfortable with committees that are created and create policies behind closed doors with no public input. In Omaha, they did this and they're now looking at having two sets of policy proposed and the general public has still gotten ZERO input into the legislation. Had all the voices been heard, or if people had had access to the committee, a lot of the circus there could have been avoided. Closed door committees are never the best format in the spirit of a democracy. Overall, the study is a little short on research -- but overall it does mirror what it seems like a majority of the cities out there are doing. Well worth the read and thanks to Professors Cleek, Guarino and Youril for putting it together. While the study focuses on canine legislation, its principles carry into all kinds of government policies. And if you're not concerned and suspicious, you're not paying attention.
Comments