The public has a right to know, not only what its elected officials are doing, but why.

That's the key point to the arguments betwen open government advocates (including many of us here in the media) and public officials about what should be covered by the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, also called the Sunshine Law.

A year or two ago, the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government proposed stiffening the Sunshine Law, but elected officials objected strongly, saying the new restrictions could be used by opponents to harass them and that an open meetings lawsuit could be brought against any two legislators who happened to attend the same church or shop at the same store. TCOG says the law would not have had that effect and that the horror stories about officials sitting in the same pew at church were exaggerations without any basis in fact.

Now, there is discussion about a change that would loosen the law.

Last week, I was covering a meeting of Bedford County Board of Commissioners' courthouse and property committee. The committee finished its regular business and then decided to adjourn its regular session and begin a study session. That, by itself, was completely acceptable; the public had been duly notified that the courthouse committee would be meeting on that particular night, and so anyone who wanted to had the chance to attend. The mid-meeting switch from official business to informal discussion didn't change that fact in any practical way. The committee was acting in a perfectly legal, above-board manner.

What bothered me was not what the committee did, but the way one of the committee members justified it: "Well, we're not going to be taking any action in the study session, so it's OK."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Open Meetings Act has nothing to do with whether or not any action is taken. If members of a legislative body are deliberating towards an action, the public has a right to know. I have seen far too many cases where the legislative body which occupies much of my time as a reporter has voted on an important and controversial issue during one of its regular meetings with little or no discussion. Someone listening to the commission meeting on radio or watching it on cable television sometimes has no clue what's being done or why. In these cases, it's only too obvious that the real debate and discussion has gone on behind closed doors.

And the Open Meetings Act also says nothing about whether or not a reporter is present. I've sometimes hear public officials, debating about whether or not such-and-such a meeting is legal, point at me and say "well, the newspaper is here, so it's OK." Well, not everyone reads the newspaper, and some people who have a lot at stake in a particular issue may want to sit in on the discussion on their own rather than read our summary of it. The Open Meetings Act doesn't mention the press at all; it says that the public must be notified about meetings and that the public has a right to attend. I am a member of the public, and I'd like to think I'm acting on behalf of our readers, but the Open Meetings Act isn't specifically about me; it's about all of us.

The Open Meetings Act needs to be preserved, and even strengthened, so that when you want to know what your city council members, county commission members, school board members and other legislators are up to, and why, you can find out.

John I. Carney is city editor of the Times-Gazette and covers county government and other topics. His home page is lakeneuron.com.