Irony of Ironies: A Secret Hold Prevents New Freedom Information Act Bill

Congress, apparently content to explore ever new depths in public disapproval, is on the verge of having a single member derail the most meaningful reform in years of the federal Freedom of Information Act. How, you ask, when overwhelming majorities support the legislation in both the House and Senate?

The secret hold, of course. Ever heard of the secret hold? It’s a beauty – a real relic of the stuffed shirts of yesteryear, smoke-filled rooms and fat cats with stogies guffawing over the latest bamboozle of the taxpaying schmucks. Think country clubs, secret handshakes and bizarre rituals.

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation’s largest journalism-advocacy organization, used the power of the blogosphere to find out whose legislative bludgeon was buried in the back of open government. We called every senator, one by one, until at last – when it became clear he could hide no longer – Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), came blinking and grimacing into the sunlight and admitted that it was he who placed a secret hold on a bill that addresses secrecy in government.

You can’t make this stuff up.

This is how it works in Washington, kids: Sen. Kyl – this year’s Secrecy Champion -- has several as-yet-unstated objections to the Freedom of Information Reform Act, a truly wonderful bill that would significantly improve one of the strongest tools Americans have to supervise the inner workings of government and to hold elected officials accountable. The information bill has plenty of bipartisan support. It is the product of tireless work and advocacy by many open government and press freedom groups and fine legislative craftsmanship by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The U.S. House of Representatives in March approved a version of the bill with 80 Republicans joining 228 Democrats for a 308-117 vote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee then unanimously sent the measure forward to the full Senate for a vote.

In your civics book, this would be the moment where our senators hold a public debate on the merits and demerits of the legislation at hand, then vote. The votes are then counted, and if the senators who support the bill outnumber those who oppose it, well, you get the idea.

But no, not when senators, using an archaic parliamentarian parlor trick, can stop a bill dead in its tracks merely by telling their party’s Senate leader or secretary that they wish to place a hold on the bill. That’s when Senator Kyl – who routinely charts a brave course on the immigration debate, and can often be counted on to reason rather than bloviate – slipped in the hold.

The practice of honoring secret holds has no basis in law and has no support in Senate rules. It’s a good-’ol-boy creation and another of the seemingly endless perks of the Senate, where the rules always seem to benefit the representatives far more than the pesky public.

Oh, I know what’s coming: the inevitable blathering about the world’s greatest deliberative body and its need for timeless soul-searching and “candor” and how terribly hard legislating can be. We’ll hear all about collegiality and efficiency and the grand traditions that make the Senate “special.”

Spare me. Tear down the whole argument in favor of secret holds, and it comes down to cowardice: it allows a senator to cower behind anonymity while signaling their dislike for a piece of legislation. More to the point, it takes what would be a single losing vote on the floor of the Senate and converts it, magically, into stoppage of legislation.

That’s awesome power with absolutely no accountability.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who discloses his holds as a matter of practice, introduced an amendment in 2006 to force all senators to identify themselves when placing a hold on a bill. That proposal has gone nowhere fast.

Are you surprised?

Charles N. Davis, executive director

The National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism

 

Hip and Trendy Name? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Hip and Trendy Name

Letter to the Editor:

The future plans for North Beach that was presented by the city of Miami Beach’s North Beach co-coordinator, Joyce Meyers, does not adequately focus on North Beach’s short-term problems and solutions [“Street Life,” published May 24]. One of the reasons is that most of those individuals and organizations (NBDC and the Planning Board) that are proposing and commenting on the plan do not live in North Beach and do not understand the needs of the neighborhood.

The highlights of this proposal and discussion are: selecting a “hip and trendy” name for North Beach; extending the green space to the 72nd Street parking lot (at a cost of multi- millions of taxpayers dollars and effectively disrupt the area for two years); the creation of a new farmers/flea market to compete with and dilute the success of the Normandy Village Market and to create an overlay district so that developers can exploit and change the character of North Beach.

There is no mention of supporting local businesses on Collins Avenue and 71st Street who provide the daily services to area residents. The problems of increasing traffic, the homeless and keeping the streets and parks clean are of greater concern to the residents of North Beach.

If the landlords on Ocean Terrace are interested in developing the street, why don’t they rent affordable space for restaurants and shops, buy umbrellas and landscape their property? The gist of Meyers’ presentation to encourage “wealthier” people to move into the area to create street life is ridiculous and un-democratic. There are many excellent restaurants and businesses in the area. We do not need more expensive restaurants and retail stores to improve our neighborhood.

Residents of our North Beach village are not looking to create a new South Beach and calling it NoBe.

Roger Abramson

Miami Beach

 

Ever Give Any Thought to the Victims?

RE: Letters, “On the Outside: Fair and Balanced at Last,” published May 31

I, too, have to agree that the coverage given by the Miami SunPost is pretty balanced (as you say). However, keep in mind that they can only report on the issues and responses that are brought to their attention. Apparently, you failed to read Part 2 of “Life on the Outside,” [Murmurs, published May 17] or you chose not to comment, due to the content stating the complete facts of the matter. While you are so compassionate of these type offenders, the rules they are SUPPOSED to abide by, and the sentences that they are given, have you given one thought to the victims and the sentences that they are cursed with?

Do you feel any compassion for the 3-year-olds, the 9-year-olds, all of the helpless victims that are prey for these individuals? Do you feel compassion for the victims that are tortured sexually and than murdered, because the sex-offender has no choice, but to kill them (he feels), after he has done the damage. Ask the mothers and fathers of these victims, about the sentences they have been given, in dealing with the repercussions of these crimes. Ask them about the LIFE sentence they have been given. I think your views are very one-sided, as in the first article “Life on the Outside.” Have you done any research on the statistics of repeat offenders?

If I have misunderstood the comments made by Mr. Boyte then I would like him to feel free to correct me.

Sheila Keesey

Gibson City, Ill.

 

Thanks for Recognizing How Good I Am

Dear Erik,

Please accept this note as a sincere expression of appreciation for my inclusion as one of the 50 persons recognized in the April 26 SunPost Power Issue. I was truly honored to be recently re-elected, and to be given the opportunity to continue my service to the citizens of our “City Beautiful.” It is hoped that my future performance will justify your recognition for my past efforts.

Best Regards,

Mayor Don Slesnick

Coral Gables

 

Feel That Woozy, Queasy Sensation In Your Belly? Yep, Election Season Is Here

To the Editor:

In all too many cases, God gave money to those to whom he could not give anything else.

We witness this daily in America ad nauseum as the media constantly glorifies these individuals as those that some should strive to equal or emulate.

Lest we ever forget, the wealth of the world is to be found in our libraries.

Wondering why I mention these things?

Well, before we know it, Miami Beach will be in the throes of city commission and mayoral elections. This time around we will witness money being spent on campaigns as never before.

Keep it in perspective, the mayor is compensated by the city: $10,000 a year for two years; commissioners at $6,000 a year for four year terms. In the upcoming elections several candidates have announced their inventions, very affluent individuals as well as those less affluent.

Some of these people are probably dedicated, some are on ego trips. Affluence does not mean one will win as we have seen in the past. Time will tell how things progress this election period.

Get ready, voters, for the battle of the excited contender. All they seek is one of your most valued possessions; your vote.

Promises, theatrics, brickbats, bombast and much more will be in the offing. It almost makes you think that people seeking public office will carry out your wishes; just joking.

Sincerely,

Ronald C. Rickey

Miami Beach

[Editor’s Note: Ronald Rickey ran for mayor of Miami Beach in 2003.]