Day Two: Who Responds? Who Pays?

After receiving the complaint, the Board will say the law was violated and why; or not, and why not. There's no penalty for breaking the law, except being embarrassed in public and maybe, if you do it enough, being asked by voters to find another career.

If the citizen is rich, or a lawyer, they can also sue in court for infractions. The maximum fine is $100, assuming the judge decides to impose one (I think it's per member of the body, but honestly, I don't know; and I'm not sure anyone has ever bothered to sue).

In a court case the judge could also void the public body's secret decision or impose various other penalties. This is unclear and lacking a pro bono group willing to go to court on these issues there probably won't be much precedent set this way. If you're going to sue, make sure you do it within 45 days of the violation. (Ummm, if the decision was secret ... and doesn't appear in later minutes ... exactly how does someone know that the 45-day clock is ticking? Thank the Legislature for this piece of high-brainpower lawmaking.)

In the long run, since the Compliance Board can't impose any real penalty, the thing that hurts is that the "public body" pays some lawyer -- often the one who didn't tell them about the Act, or whose bad advice led to the complaint -- $60, $100, $whatever$ per hour to respond to the formal complaint.

The lawyer hates it because it's a dumb citizen bothering them and responding isn't sexy work. But oddly enough, the lawyer gets paid for the bad advice when he/she gives it, and then paid to answer complaints.

(The law does not require a lawyer to respond to a complaint, and as far as a lesson in learning the law, the body's presiding officer would be a better choice. But why make your head hurt, when you can use the lawyer you've got and the taxpayer foots the bill for the expert?)

The public body will sometimes argue in general that anyone who files a complaint is "wasting taxpayer money" and public officials' time.

The only response to this silliness is that (a) the taxpayer is the source of everyone's salary, and (b) the taxes that get paid are part of a good-faith social contract between the public and officials that there will be open government and that the public body and its staff will obey the law.

In the end it is faster, simpler and cheaper to "err on the side of openness" -- which the Act says is what's supposed to happen -- and talk about the minimum necessary if something must be confidential -- than to go looking for reasons to exclude the public. Very few things that local governments do really, really, really have to be done behind closed doors.