U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans are meeting to work out their differences, and they don’t want us watching.
What in the world could these politicians say about their conflicts that they haven’t already griped about in public?
Yet they’re convinced they need a closed-door “bipartisan caucus” aimed at breaking the chamber’s gridlock and speeding its business. The first caucus (that’s “secret meeting” to you and me) is scheduled for Thursday in the Old Senate Chamber. It stands to be the first meeting of the full Senate in that historic room since President Clinton’s impeachment trial.
So far, the agenda for this unstructured bull session and the rules governing it haven’t been finalized.
The need for closed-door meetings in cases where the Senate must discuss sensitive business, such as impeachments or matters of national security, is understandable – and, thankfully, uncommon. Blocking public access to meetings of any other nature – especially those where elected officials explain how they hope to work together more effectively – is unacceptable.
Republican Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard has “not committed to attending the meeting” because of other Senate committee responsibilities, a spokeswoman for his office said.
But Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat, not only plans to attend the caucus, but “is absolutely encouraged by it,” said Cody Wertz, Salazar’s communications director.
“A meeting like this is going to smooth out maybe any grudges and possibly clear the way to get work done in the 110th Congress,” Wertz said.
Great. Why not air those grievances in public?
“This is about how to move forward, how to get along,” Wertz said. “Having a caucus that is together like this is unprecedented, and that is what is encouraging about this Congress.”
I wish I could say I am stunned by this goofy plan, but nothing surprises me where government secrecy is concerned. What does surprise me is the degree to which some people refuse to learn from history. Surely, I’m not the only one who remembers Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful attempt to reform national health care. She wanted to conduct much of that initiative in secret – and look at where it got her. And, oh, the irony: This secret meeting “might help the Senate actually get something done about national health care,” Wertz said.
If the U.S. Senate really wants to eradicate gridlock, there are plenty of other ways to start than by closing meetings. Why block the public from seeing the business conducted in its name? Why kick out the media?
If anything, lawmakers need to become more transparent. They need to be unmasked for their behind-the-scenes shenanigans, blatant partisanship and ties to special interests. They need to stop the parliamentary maneuvers that stall debate and progress.
A bipartisan effort to help people see more of what goes on, not less, might encourage voters to weed out some of the Senate’s chief contributors to “gridlock.”
Secret meetings – no matter how well-intentioned – only fuel suspicion that these lawmakers consider themselves above public accountability – and that special interests, not the will of the people, dictate law and public policy.
We must urge senators to reconsider this deeply flawed plan and to reject any other closed-door, bipartisan caucuses that may be proposed. (You can bet that if they think this private kumbayah session goes well, they’ll try to hold others).
The American people aren’t stupid, and they deserve better than this.
Christine Tatum, an assistant business editor for The Denver Post, is national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation’s largest and oldest journalism advocacy organization.
