Much-needed legislation to put teeth into Mississippi’s OpenMeetings and Open Records laws is again making its way through theMississippi Legislature. Perhaps this time a bill will actuallyreach the desired destination.

On Thursday, the Mississippi Senate passed a bill that would allowa chancery court to nullify any action that occurs during anillegally closed meeting of a public body. The bill also wouldimpose a fine of up to $1,000 on any person found violating thelaw.

In addition to open meetings, the Senate bill toughens regulationsregarding public records, which represent the printed history ofhappenings at public meetings and of other important public bodyactivities. The bill sets up a $100 fine per violation for anyonefound denying access to public records.

The Senate move follows passage by the House committee of a billthat would increase the fines for violations to between $500 and$1,000. Another open meetings bill was still pending in the samecommittee.

In looking at open meetings and open records, there are several keyfactors to consider.

First is the raising of the paltry $100 fine currently forviolations of openness. That amount is below insignificant forofficials bent on keeping public light from shining on theiractivities.

On top of that, though, is the fact that the law-breaking officialis not held personally responsible for paying either the fine orreasonable attorneys’ fees of the person filing thecomplaint.

The Senate legislation addresses this important misgiving and makespersonal the penalty for a violation. It would prohibit publicfunds from being used to pay fines for openness violations.

Furthermore in the name of openness, the Senate bill allows for thenullification of any action taken in secret by a public body. Thataspect would go a long way in serving as a disincentive for publicofficials to skirt the law, especially when they know whatever theydid in secret could be undone in public.

Previous legislative attempts to increase openness in governmenthave produced modest results, such as last year when the timeperiod for responding to open records requests was cut in half from14 working days to seven. But more work in the name of opennessremains to be done, an uncertain prospect when prior bills havedied in committee or withered under legislativetechnicalities.

Openness on the part of government officials is simply a mindsetthat must be in place. Many officials readily practice the policy,but far too many still actively attempt to operate behind closeddoors or drag their feet when it comes to supplying publicrecords.

For those in the latter category, the public good demands thatsomething get their attention. This year’s pending legislation isthe best way to do that.