REP. JEFF FLAKE IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE. (Original photo at americanradioworks.publicradio.org.)

In the aftermath of widespread Republican defeats in this year’s federal elections, Arizona’s own Jeff Flake keeps popping up among a small list of names that party activists and conservative pundits believe are now the future of the GOP. After a Nov. 5 column in the Washington Post, he’s being talked about by everyone from random bloggers to prominent political sites. One Web site even polled 42 conservative bloggers about their favorite Republicans and Flake came in ninth.

Flake’s rise to national prominence continues Friday when he takes part in the 40th anniversary celebration of Reason Foundation, the Los Angeles-based libertarian think tank that sponsors Reason Magazine and Reason.TV. Flake will be the keynote speaker at a Hollywood gala banquet emceed by comedian and “Price is Right” host Drew Carey. It’s safe to say one of these two guys is probably the reason that the banquet and the related two-day conference have been sold out for weeks.

By chance, the Reason Foundation’s top award, “The Flame of Freedom,” will be awarded to two couples — R. David and Judith Threshie and Richard A. and Patricia Wallace. These people have been prominent leaders of Freedom Communications, the Tribune’s parent company, and active supporters of Reason as well. David Threshie is the Freedom board chairman emeritus and a former publisher of the Orange County Register. Richard Wallace recently retired as Freedom vice president of corporate affairs. Judith Threshie and Patricia Wallace are two granddaughters of company founder R.C. Hoiles, and have been active in the family partnership that ultimately owns the private company.

    REP. DAVID LUJAN

Last summer, a small group of Valley journalists and people from other careers met at the Tempe Public Library to discuss possible ways to make government more transparent to the public, with an emphasis on freedom of information and open records law.s The meeting was organized by the 21st Century Right-to-Know Project as part of a national listening tour for the purpose of developing proposed policy changes for the incoming new president (whether it turned out to be John McCain or Barack Obama).

While most of the discussion focused on federal agencies, state Rep. David Lujan, D-Ariz., spoke to the group about how Arizona law works and where potential gaps might be. The back-and-forth led to the point that while Arizona has a robust open records’ law that most lawmakers support, the Legislature always has been exempt from obeying it. Lujan noted the irony that the Legislature expects other government agencies to follow a statute that lawmakers won’t impose on themselves.

Lujan pledged before the group to draft and introduce a bill next year that would generally include the Legislature under the open records statute. Now, I wouldn’t expect such a bill to get anywhere. Individual lawmakers and legislative agencies actually are quite good about releasing records and other data from their offices, if only to avoid the appearance of trying to hide something from the public. But a number of lawmakers I’ve talked to don’t believe the open records law should apply to the Legislature, to protect those rare instances in which they choose not to share anything. They see such a law as intruding on the constitutional authority of individual lawmakers as elected officeholders (even though the same law already applies to county board of supervisors and city councils).

What’s interesting here is House Democrats decided last week to name Lujan as their new leader, replacing Phil Lopes of Tucson. So if Lujan keeps his pledge, he could give more visibility to a bill that requires the Arizona Legislature to release its records, instead of simply trusting lawmakers to do so.

Government bodies should conduct their business in the open before residents and other interested parties so everyone can listen to the exchange of views and information. Discussion held in public allows residents to have a common understanding of where a council or county board is coming from when it finally acts, and individuals have an opportunity to correct bad information or to persuade council members to reconsider positions.

This is why the Arizona Open Meetings law generally requires city councils to hold study sessions, workshops and background briefings in public, instead of applying only to the meetings where actual votes take place. In the past, the Legislature has specifically added language to the law to cover advisory bodies and subcommittees, to prevent governments from making decisions in smaller groups behind closed doors and then rubber-stamping those decisions with formal votes during a public meeting of the full body.

But the Gilbert Town Council recently thwarted the Legislature’s intent as two council members have been researching concerns raised by some residents about doorknob advertising that continues to appear even when property owners have posted signs telling flier delivery people to stay away.

As Tribune writer Beth Lucas reported Friday, Mayor Steve Berman asked council members Joan Krueger and Don Skousen to lead a committee that included representatives from the police, the municipal court and business leaders to look into the issue. Called an “informal subcommittee,” Krueger and Skousen apparently have been working diligently on the issue for the past month or so, but no meetings have been held in public.

So we have no idea who Krueger and Skousen have been talking to or what information they might have told. We don’t know if they been dealing equally with all of the affected parties – homeowners, businesses that use door-to-door advertising, and the advertising companies – or if their efforts were focused more heavily on one particular side.

Town officials apparently believe that calling the subcommittee “informal” somehow excludes this group from the state Open Meetings law. But the statute is quite clear: “Public body includes all quasi-judicial bodies and all standing, special or advisory committees or subcommittees, or appointed by, such public body.” (A.R.S. 38-431 (6)).

The mere use of the word “subcommittee” should have alerted someone at Gilbert Town Hall that the Arizona Open Meetings law is at issue here. But the term isn’t important. It’s the fact that two Gilbert council members are researching the issue on behalf of their colleagues and will soon make a recommendation on what the town should do. Such research and discussion should have taken place in a public forum with appropriate advance notice so anyone who’s interested could be in the audience to watch.Government discussion held in secret breeds suspicion about motivations and raises doubt that a government body is really considering all of the relevant facts and opinions. Gilbert certainly has done that here. Resident Naida Bloch, who is passionate about getting the town’s help in stopping doorknob advertising at her home, first called my attention earlier this week to the fact that Skousen/Krueger subcommittee never had a public meeting. She’s worried about what the advertisers might have told these council members in secret.

The council can avoid such suspicions simply by following the Open Meetings Law.