I see that the state Legislature is fooling around with another open meetings act. I remember the first time they went to an open meetings act and to an open records act.

I testified before the committee hearings each time.

I remember that part well because the first time I testified, I spoke against such a law, and the whole press corps was aghast. I never believed in that kind of legislation. As I told the committee, the Inter American Press Association, experienced as it is in every trick of the trade by governments of about 40 countries, has become convinced that the "best press law is no press law."

Press laws usually turn out not to be a newsman's paradise. Too often they become a lawyer's paradise instead, or a bureaucrat's paradise. Formal laws have to be administered by the numbers, with appropriate exemptions and step-by-step procedures. Time has to be provided to make those formal decisions, at each step of the procedure. This method thus becomes a godsend to any body wishing to delay and obstruct.

Also, it means formal records, logs, of inquiries. Anybody on the inside with a record to worry about is apt to have a staffer check that record from time to time to see if anybody is looking, Sometimes that can tip them off to an investigation prematurely and spoil everything.

Things at the local and state levels were much easier before that original legislation was passed. You asked to see something and were either handed it automatically or refused on the spot. If they refused, they were instantly on notice of a possible "cover-up" story, and they also knew that the refusal would really focus investigative interest on that area. If there was anything shady, it could blow up in their face with double strength, since it would start with their efforts to hide.

As for private sessions, there is a need for such, clearly, just as there is reason for lawyer-client privilege, and if something emerges into action that had to be cooked up in advance yet pops up out of thin air, you know instantly there was an improper secret session. The price for that can really be high, especially if there is something shady about the action. The climate for that project automatically becomes suspicious. It looks bad.

So government folks were usually promptly forthcoming. They didn't worry about procedures or "how can we hold back and make it legal." Holding back for any reason put them at immediate risk in the arena they care most about — public perception.

Because of this, records of all kinds were routinely available without folderol, and we were often urged to attend private meetings to assure ourselves nothing shady was going on, sometimes with the understanding that if they strayed to public areas, we would feel free to print it. Sometimes we went. Today, going is considered compromising by most, because we've amended our version of the First Amendment to mean that anything we know is printable.

The trouble with that is what we now get from executive sessions is some self-serving version by some participant with his own axe to grind — and is anything but fair or reliable. It has created the age of "leaks," and leaks come with a purpose from somebody who has an agenda of his own. They are guaranteed to be slanted at the very least.

As for the way open meetings for the congressional committees has worked, the result is a simple one. Negotiations no longer take place in committee meetings and hence no longer are done by the congressmen or women themselves. Top staffers of their offices meet and work things out, instead. Result, more pork barrel than in previous history, arranged by faceless members of the club within the club on Capitol Hill — the association of staffers. That's no improvement.

I can't remember which "open" law was passed first in Springfield, meetings or records, but I certainly re-

July 1991 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 5

member what happened when they came in with No. 2, whichever one that was.

Having just experienced what had actually happened after the passage of the first one, the legislative correspondents association and the Illinois Press Association joined me in opposing No. 2.

I sure remember that complete turnaround.

I also remember that it passed anyway. They gave us something we didn't want — I guess, because it would sound good to the uninitiated voter.

Today, I don't think there is anybody left in the correspondents' gang who went through that experience or knows what it was really like when there were no such rules and few, if any, in the Illinois Press Association.

So, heaven help us, indeed, this time. •

FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK ...
(Continued from page 3)

The Glencoe resident also represented real estate developers in communities where he was not governmental attorney. He worked to have a new type of contract—an annexation agreement to guarantee that promises made by both town and developer would be fulfilled—made part of Illinois law.

He also was noted as the dean of Illinois municipal and school lawyers, said a spokesman for the law firm, and was active in the Illinois Municipal League.

In 1987, he contributed $1 million to the Northwestern University Law School, which established the Louis and Harriet Ancel Chair of Law and Public Policy and the Louis and Harriet Ancel Research Fund in 1989.

Besides his wife, Harriet, he is survived by a son, Fredric; a daughter, Judith; a brother, Harvey, and four grandchildren.

Memorial services were held at 2 p.m. July 14 at Northwestern University Law School, Lincoln Hall, 357 E. Chicago. Burial will be private. •

Page 6 / Illinois Municipal Review / July 1991