Many children of the ’60s will remember college freshman English and studying George Orwell’s book, “1984.” That novel, published in 1949, is about a future government that controlled every aspect of daily life through highly-developed propaganda tools. It introduced a couple of phrases into the lexicon — “Newspeak” and “doublespeak.”
Wikipedia defines “Newspeak” as words “deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case political implications but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” Translation: Newspeak describes political statements people tell others because they believe their deceptions work for the greater good. We hope the fallacy is obvious.
So now we come to a situation that’s developed at the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission with regard to public policy, in specific, holding open meetings.
“Newspeak” seems to be the most generous description we can find.
It seems commission leadership now wants to ban the public from committee meetings, and it is seeking legal justification to do it while its leadership touts openness.
This unfortunate development revealed itself after Ramon Bell, president of the N.C. Bowhunters Association, requested a schedule of commission committee and sub-committee hearings. He was told committee meetings were not subject to the N.C. Open Meetings Law, and no schedule was forthcoming. That response obviously was the work of a legal mind seeking a path around the N.C. Open Meetings Law. But that law is clear: Any public body, plus its committees, must offer, in advance, notice of hearings so the public may attend. Even if just two members meet, it’s a “meeting” — a majority of the body does not have to be present. If the Commission’s interpretation is correct, no citizen could attend any legislative sub-committee or committee meeting.
But, for some reason, commission leaders apparently don’t like public scrutiny of committee meetings and are attempting to bend that law.
Why? Good question.
NCBA has had a long history of attending Big Game Committee hearings held during July and August to find out what the commission was planning with regard to game management and wildlife regulations.
During the early stages of drafting fish-and-game proposals for the 2009-10 seasons, Wes Seegars of Goldsboro, the Commission’s chairman, said that Bell, representing the NCBA along with others, was invited to attend committee meetings, then “came out and told their constituents what we were doing and sent a letter to the governor saying that the (commissioners should be removed from office). I said, ‘Ramon, where’s this coming from? You know it’s not proper.’ We told Ramon, ‘If you want to maintain credibility with the commission, you can’t do this kind of stuff.’”
Bell said he’s only representing his organization, as he should.
“First, (NCBA) never has been invited (to committee hearings),” Bell said. “We asked when they were scheduled and just showed up. We objected to taking out a week of bow season … and (legalizing) crossbows. That’s what our members want — for us to stand up for them.”
The best approach, in our estimation, is openness and bringing everyone into the process. But that ball is in Seegars’ court now.
Be the first to comment