GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800030011-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 11
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800030011-2..
GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE
Capping off a three-year effort, the Senate Nov. 6
unanimously passed a bill (S 5) requiring that most meet-
ings of independent federal agencies be open to the public.
The bill also would bar informal-ex pane-contacts
between agency officials and interested outsiders to discuss
pending business.
S 5 coasted to passage on a 94-0 vote with virtually no
opposition on the floor. The action followed by one day
Senate adoption of a resolution (S Res 9) similarly opening
most meetings of Senate committees and House-Senate
conferences. House committee meetings have been open
since 1973. (Vote 467, Weekly Report p. 2425; Senate rules
change, Weekly Report p. 2413)
In the only other recorded vote on the bill, the senate
before passage rejected, 36-57, an amendment offered by
Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.) to exempt most meetings of the
Federal Reserve Board from the bill's provisions. To ex-
empt that agency, however sensitive its deliberations on
monetary policy, would invite demands for similar exemp-
tions by other agencies, supporters of the bill argued. (Vote
466, Weekly Report p. 2425)
Provisions
As passed by the Senate, S 5:
? Required the Federal Election Commission and all
agencies headed by two or more persons appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate to open all meetings
to the public unless a majority voted to close a meeting.
? Defined a meeting as deliberations where at least a
quorum of members meet to conduct or dispose of official
business.
? Specified that a meeting could he closed only for dis-
cussions of the following 10 matters: 1) national defense or
foreign policy; 2) agency personnel rules and practices; 3)
information whose disclosure would constitute an un-
warranted invasion of personal privacy; 4) accusations of a
crime or formal censure; 5) law enforcement investigatory
records; 6) trade secrets or financial or commercial infor-
mation obtained under a pledge of confidentiality or where
disclosure could damage competitive position; 7) informa-
tion whose premature disclosure could lead to significant
financial speculation, endanger the stability of a financial
institution or frustrate a proposed agency action; 8) bank
examination records and similar financial audits; 9) the
agency's involvement in federal or state civil actions or
similar legal proceedings where there is a public record; 10)
information required by other laws to be kept confidential.
? Allowed a meeting to be closed by a majority record
vote of all members, barring use of proxies; permitted a
single vote to be taken to close a series of meetings on the
same subject to be held within a 30-day period.
? Allowed a person affected by the deliberations of a
meeting to request that it be closed.
Voter Registration by Mail
The House Administration Committee Nov. 7
ordered reported, by a 17-6 vote, a bill (HR 1686) to es-
tablish a nationwide postcard voter registration
system for federal elections. The action revived legisla-
tion that was killed in the House in 1974. (1974
Almanac p. 659)
The committee also used the bill to change the
procedure Congress follows in reviewing regulations of
the Federal Election Commission. Under an amend-
ment included in the measure, the House and Senate
no longer would have to vote to disapprove commission
regulations to reject them. Instead,- Congress could
veto commission regulations by not acting on them
within 30 legislative days. If a proposed regulation was
not approved, it would be sent back to the commission.
The effect of that change would be to lift from the
House and Senate the burden of having to veto com-
mission regulations in recorded votes. (Federal Elec-
tion Commission, Weekly Report p. 2073)
As approved by the committee, the postcard voter
registration bill would establish a Voter Registration
Administration within the Federal Election Commis-
sion to provide information to state officials concern-
ing voter registration by mail and election problems in
general.
The bill would require the Postal Service to dis-
tribute registration forms to every postal address and
residence at least once every two years and prior' to
every special federal election. The bill further required
that distribution of registration cards be made at no
charge. The committee authorized tip to $50-million for
the registration program.
? Permitted agencies that regularly meet in closed ses-
sion to devise general regulations to expedite closed
meetings.
? Required advance public notice of the date, place and
subject matter of all meetings.
? Required agencies to keep transcripts of closed
meetings and make available to the public portions not ex-
empted from disclosure.
? Provided for district court enforcement and review of
the open-meeting requirements and placed the burden of
proof in disputes upon the agency.
? Prohibited ex paste communications between agency
officials and outsiders affected by pending agency business,
required an official to make public any such contact and
made cr paste communications grounds for ruling against
a party in an agency proceeding.
? Required each agency to report annually to Congress
tle numbers of open and closed meetings, reasons for clos-
in;r meetings and descriptions of any litigation against an
agency under the law.
e Required an agency to disclose its vote to close a ? Provided that the bill's provisions-would take effect
meeting \v PipraEedi: Ar Rele ser2AQr1/ A7ribGI A-RDR7(7UQ014.:4PM OMAQQ1r e3 agencies to make public
written explanation of its decision to close. proposed open-meeting regulations before that date.
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800030011-2
Government Operations - 2
Background
The "Government in the Sunshine Act," as S 5 was en-
titled, was first introduced in the Senate by Lawton Chiles
(D Fla.) in 1972. Government Operations subcommittees
held two sets of hearings in 1974, and the legislation was
reported by the full committee July 31, 1975 (S Rept 94-
354).
As reported by the Government Operations Com-
mittee, S 5 included two sections. Title I required all con-
gressional sessions-House and Senate-to be open. Title II
contained the provisions affecting executive agencies.
Because Title I pertained to Senate operations, the bill
subsequently was referred to the Rules and Administration
Committee, which reported an amended version of the
measure Sept. 18 (S Rcpt 94-381). The Rules Committee
stripped Title I from the hill, then reported instead a
separate resolution essentially allowing Senate committees
to choose their own open-meeting rules. The Senate Nov. 5
rejected that version in favor of a broader Chiles-Roth (R
Del.) resolution (S Res 9) opening committee meetings as a
general rule. (Earlier stories, Weekly Report p. 2265, 2125)
The open-meeting provisions of S 5 would apply to 47
executive agencies, according to the Justice Department,
ranging from major regulatory bodies such as the Federal
Communications Commission down to the more obscure
National Council on Quality in Education. They would not
apply to executive departments and other cabinet-level
agencies headed by a single chief executive.
The bill's ex parte provision stemmed from a 20-year
effort to limit secret contacts with officials by lawyers, lob-
byists and others interested in agency proceedings. It
followed closely a draft proposed by the American Bar
Association in 1974. The provision applied to all agencies,
multi- or single-headed.
The House Government Operations Subcommittee on
Government Information and Individual Rights began
hearings on its own sunshine bills (IIR 9868, IIR 10315) on
Nov. 6.
Floor Action
Although a parade of agencies had testified before the
Government Operations Committee against S 5, the bill en-
countered no outright opposition on the Senate floor. Sup-
porters attributed the lack of opposition to a reluctance of
senators to line up against open government, a national an-
tipathy to bureaucracy and the ice-breaking adoption of S
Res 9 the day before.
"Forty-eight states have enacted some type of open
meeting provision," Chiles declared in opening debate.
"Now that, Congress had taken the lead by opening its own
doors, I feel that we are in an excellent position to request
that executive agencies follow suit."
Opponents of S 5 in hearings had complained that open
meetings would disrupt proceedings, inhibit free discussion
and, by presenting just one stage to the public, cast a dis-
torted image of agency procedures. Further, agency of-
ficials said, permitting affected parties to observe
deliberations would subject officials to political pressure.
attend meetings and force better reasoned decisions. The
long-term benefit could be clearer public understanding of
agency procedures and less distrust of government in
general, supporters said.
Federal Reserve Board
The only real debate came on the Javits amendment,
rejected 36-57, to exempt the Federal Reserve Board from
the act except when the board was considering consumer
protection matters. While making it clear that he sup-
ported the bill's over-all intent, Javits. said he had been per-
suaded by Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur F. Burns that
S 5 would open the monetary policy-making process to
scrutiny and abuse by speculators. While the bill made
special provisions for financial matters, Javits said,. dis-
closure requirements still might lead to disclosure of infer-
nration too sensitive for the public domain.
Chiles opposed making special exception for the
Federal Reserve, saying provisions of S 5 had been tailored
to meet its security needs. Chiles contended that Burns'
primary concern was that the bill reflected adversely on the
integrity of the. board. "No agency of the people," Chiles
argued, "should be exempted, just written out, because of
the fact that it is supposed to be sacrosanct...."
Other Amendments
S 5 supporters did make one concession to the Federal
Reserve Board. By voice vote, the Senate adopted an
amendment offered by William V. Roth Jr. (R Del.) to
change the wording in the exemptions to allow closed
meetings if there was a prospect of "significant," rather
than "serious," financial speculation.
The Senate also adopted by voice vote an amendment
by Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.) to bring the bill into con-
formity with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (PI.
79-404). 1
-By Ted Vaden
House Passage:
WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE ADVISER
With strong bipartisan support, the House Nov. 6
passed a bill (HR 10230) that would revive the position of
presidential science adviser that former President Nixon
abolished in 1973. President Ford supported the bill, and
White House aides worked closely with the Science and
Technology Committee to develop the compromise
measure.
The bill culminated several years of committee study
of what federal scientific activities should accomplish, how
they should be coordinated and what sort of policy direc-
tion the White House should provide. In addition to reviv-
ing the White I-Iow e science advisory structure, the bill
would set forth a statement of national science policy goals
and create a tempori ry committee to look at issues such as
the possible creatio r of a cabinet-level Department of
Science.
But supporters of S 5 maintained that the experience Background
of states and other bodies with open meetings had dispelled .. The position of presidential science adviser was es.
most such concerns. On the contrary, they said, the tablished in the lac 1950s, partly in response t.-
presence. of the public would promote better debate en- tcchnolo rical adv u e' 1.y viet Pinion. In an effort
courage ccApprsive oriR&LdaMnMAiQi9,~flh7egt RDP77t AORPA* P 9 r' -resident Nixon abolish,