Opinion ID: 1468395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the sunshine law

Text: The current Open Public Meetings Act is in keeping with a strong tradition both in this State and in the nation favoring public involvement in almost every aspect of government. In New Jersey the former Right to Know Law was passed in 1960, L. 1960, c. 173, and interpreted to apply to a broad variety of governmental agencies. See Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sea Girt, 80 N.J. Super. 454 (Law Div. 1963), aff'd 45 N.J. 268 (board of adjustment); Wolf v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Park Ridge, 79 N.J. Super. 546, 552 (App. Div. 1963) (same); Tidewater Oil Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Carteret, 80 N.J. Super. 283 (Law Div. 1963), rev'd on other grounds, 44 N.J. 338 (1960) (planning board); Thomas v. Bergen Cty. Welfare Board, 122 N.J. Super. 371 (App. Div. 1973) (welfare board); Schults v. Bd. of Ed. of Teaneck, 86 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div. 1964), aff'd 45 N.J. 2 (1965) (board of education). Legislation similar to our own now exists in virtually every state as well as in the District of Columbia. See Note, Government in the Sunshine Act: Opening Federal Agency Meetings, 26 Am. U.L. Rev. 154 (1976). The importance and widespread acceptance of the aims of such legislation are further underscored by the fact that the recently enacted federal law on this subject, the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives and by a unanimous vote in the Senate. Id. at 155, n. 4. Although state legislation in this area has proliferated only in the last decade, [4] the common law origins of this important policy may be traced to English law dating back to the first half of the 18th century. See the Attorney General's Committee on the Right to Know, New Jersey's Right to Know : A Report on Open Government at 7 (1974). In this State, courts have long recognized a common law right to public information. See Ferry v. Williams, 41 N.J.L. 332 (Sup. Ct. 1879); Taxpayers Assoc. v. City of Cape May, 2 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 1949); Moore v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer County, 76 N.J. Super. 396 (App. Div. 1962), modified 39 N.J. 26 (1962). The broad reach of this right was noted by Mr. Justice Mountain, writing for the Court in Irval Realty v. Bd. of Pub. Util. Commissioners, 61 N.J. 366 (1972), when he stated that a citizen had an enforceable right to require custodians of public records to make them available for reasonable inspection and examination, even though his interest may not have been purely personal or was slight. 61 N.J. at 372. Additionally, several commentators have argued that the public's right to know is of constitutional dimension. See, e.g., Levi, Confidentiality and Democratic Government, 30 The Record 323, 326 (1975); Note, supra, 26 Am. U.L. Rev. at 203-06; and authorities cited in Note, Open Meeting Statutes: The Press Fights for the `Right to Know,' 75 Harv. L. Rev. 1199, 1204, n. 33 (1966). The policy reasons for opening up government to the public have been expressed on numerous occasions throughout this nation's history. Foremost among them is the goal of fulfilling our cherished ideal of creating a government of the people. James Madison wrote: A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. [Letter to W.T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822, in 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910)] DeTocqueville felt that these same ideas were fundamental to the American tradition. In his perceptive commentaries about our system of government, he observed: It is by taking a share in legislation that the American learns to know the law; it is by governing that be becomes educated about the formalities of government. The great work of society is daily performed before his eyes, and so to say, under his hands. [A. DeTocqueville, Democracy in America 304 Doubleday & Co., Inc. (1848 ed.)] A second reason for conducting government in the sunshine is that it prevents corruption. Few persons would disagree with Woodrow Wilson's statement that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places. F. Rourke, Secrecy and Publicity 25 (1961) (quoting Wilson in The New Freedom 92-104). See Markham, Sunshine on the Administrative Process: Wherein Lies the Shade, 28 Admin. L. Rev. 463 (1976); Tacha, The Kansas Open Meeting Act: Sunshine on the Sunflower State? 52 Kan. L. Rev. 169 (1977). Former Chief Justice Warren viewed the Watergate scandal as an unfortunate confirmation of the truth of Woodrow Wilson's observation. He stated: It would be difficult to name a more efficient ally of corruption than secrecy. Corruption is never flaunted to the world. In government it is invariably practiced through secrecy  secrecy found in every level of government from city halls to the White House and Capitol. If anything is to be learned from our present difficulties, compendiously known as Watergate, it is that we must open our public affairs to public scrutiny on every level of government. [Warren, Governmental Secrecy : Corruption's Ally, 60 A.B.A.J. 550 (1974)] Surely these principles are more than mere abstract expressions of some illusory ideal. We believe that the Act before the Court today reflects a legislative intention to incorporate such precepts into the very fabric of government in this State. In its statement of findings and declaration to the Open Public Meetings Act the Legislature stressed the importance which it attached to the policies which the new law was to implement: The Legislature finds and declares that the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies, is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process; that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society, .... [ N.J.S.A. 10:4-7] It further declared it to be the public policy of this State to insure the right of its citizens to have adequate advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings of public bodies at which any business affecting the public is discussed or acted upon in any way except only in those circumstances where otherwise the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion. The Legislature further declares it to be the public policy of this State to insure that the aforesaid rights are implemented pursuant to the provisions of this act so that no confusions, misconstructions or misinterpretations may thwart the purposes hereof.