There are a number of reasons for this selection, some of which relate to ongoing events that week (November 27-30) in Iowa that will involve some additional (relatively brief) readings. The Monday before our Wednesday Governor Vilsack has called a meeting in Cedar Rapids with Board of Regents President Michael Gartner (not incidentally a former President of NBC News, former owner of the Des Moines Register, and I believe current owner of the Ames Tribune and a ball club), and representatives from the University of Iowa (including our own Shelly Kurtz, President of the UI Faculty Senate) regarding the Regents' UI presidential search process. Among the issues on the table are interpretations of Iowa's Open Meetings law.

See, Kathryn Fiegen, "Vilsack to Meet With Regent, UI Officials," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 25, 2006,
http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/kfpc1125.html

and, Diane Heldt, "Vilsack Intervenes in UI Search; Governor to meet with Gartner, UI officials to urge cooperation in presidential selection," The Gazette, November 25, 2006, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/dhtg1125.html

[You are not required to read my blog entries over the past few days on these issues: links to virtually all related documents in full text as well as personal commentary. Their contents will not be a part of our class discussion or reading assignment -- except as indicated here. I just remind you they are available to you if you're interested in the other issues involved in this mess that's been made of the presidential search.]

As it happens, this is a subject about which I was writing a couple of years ago. So I will include in our readings Nicholas Johnson, "Open Minds About Open Meetings," Des Moines Register, February 18, 2005, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/openmeet/njdmr218.html This is a short newspaper column that draws on a lengthier law review article: Nicholas Johnson, "Open Meetings and Closed Minds: Another Road to the Mountaintop," 53 Drake L. Rev. 11 (2004) [pp. 11-53] http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/openmeet/njdlr412.pdf The only required reading is the column, but if you're interested in the subject anyway I would like to believe you will find the article useful. It does, of course, provide some very concrete clues as to the issues and perspectives where I'll be likely to take our class discussion.

An insight into the issues surrounding the Board of Regents' possible violation of the Iowa Code is discussed in Erin Jordan, "Expert: Regents met unlawfully; Secret sessions may taint new president search, says open records advocate, Des Moines Register, November 19, 2006, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/ejdr1119.html

As you might suspect, the media have also editorialized about the virtues of open meetings:

Editorial, "Shed secrecy in search for university president; Regents' bungling fuels public distrust," Des Moines Register, November 21, 2006, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/eddr1121.html

Editorial, "Regents should focus on the spirit of the law," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 21, 2006, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/edpc1121.html

And a subsequent Press-Citizen editorial seems to be calling for a full court press lobbying effort by Iowans, focusing on the Iowa legislature and Board of Regents, to bring about a clarification of the law: Editorial, "Don't Jeopardize Open Government," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 25, 2006, http://www.nicholasjohnson.org/BlogStuf/regents/edpc1125.html

But our discussion involves more than a "current events" exercise. How might this material be useful to you in the future -- personally and as a lawyer?

Given that this is a course called "Law of Electronic Media," and the attention we've given to "journalism law," an obvious use would be in your representation of media organizations. When does the law permit a journalist to get access to a document, or a meeting, from which the government would prefer to exclude the media? What can you do on your client's behalf when an agency refuses to comply with the law? Can an agency, or elected official, admit some media representatives and exclude others (who have been critical)? (Note that some of the documents relevant to the Regents' presidential search have been given up to the media by the Regents, not willingly, but only after litigation.)

But this is much more than a "media law" matter.

Open meetings and public records laws can also relate to you personally, your family members and friends -- and, of course, your non-media clients. The situation may arise in which weird things are going on that lead you to suspect an agency may have some false information about a person. You may want to know what rights the "Privacy Act" provide you to obtain such documents. You may be a member of a public body, or have a client who is, when an issue arises as to the restraints imposed on your conversations with your fellow members as a result of the applicable Open Meetings law -- and the personal liability that may befall you if those standards are violated. You may have a client who is required by law to file information with a government agency that the client would prefer not to file; or, having filed it, wants to make sure will be held in confidence. Or, you may be on the other side of that one: you or a client may want to get access to such information that has been filed by a competitor and would be very useful to you. Or you may get in a dispute with an agency regarding whether the statutory provisions providing exceptions to the open meetings and public records requirements are mandatory (it can't reveal, even though it would like to) or discretionary (it may legally withhold, but is not required to do so).

Some of the basic federal and Iowa statutory foundation for our discussion includes:

"Official Meetings Open to Public," Iowa Code Sec. 21 (1995), http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&input=21, and especially Sec. 21.5 ("Closed Session")

"Open Meetings," Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Sec. 552b. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552---b000-.html

Finally, and especially for the corporate types among us, here is an illustration of the interaction between the open meetings requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Electronic Freedom of Information Improvement Act (1996), mentioned by our authors at p. 1024, par. 10:

SEC Open Meetings, http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings.shtml (it's just a screen to look at for under 30 seconds; no heavy reading involved).