Warren Bluhm has a great idea you may have read before (say, here):

In light of the current assault on the Wisconsin tradition of open government, and to ensure that the door is closed to such legislative mischief, it’s time that the preamble to our open records and open meetings laws was enshrined as an amendment to the state constitution:

“In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them.” …

The original drafters of the state constitution even embraced that philosophy: “Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same, except such parts as require secrecy. The doors of each house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall require secrecy.”

More and more in the last decade or so, the requirement to include the public while doing public business has become an inconvenience to public servants, and so they inserted this repeal among 67 “adjustments” in the final omnibus motion before sending the 2015-17 state budget to the Legislature for final approval.

It did not take long before news outlets and other advocates of open government throughout Wisconsin and, indeed, the nation began calling foul. So loud was the outcry that by Saturday morning, Independence Day, the governor and legislative leaders issued a statement that the offending language would be removed from the state budget.

With the same enthusiasm with which they had objected, the advocates of open government celebrated a victory, perhaps overlooking the final words of the statement: “In order to allow for further debate on this issue outside of budget process, the Legislature will form a Legislative Council committee to more appropriately study it and allow for public discussion and input.”

In plain language, the repeal of Wisconsin open government was not stopped in its tracks, merely postponed for a day when advocates are not paying as close attention.

And therein lies the reason for my call for a constitutional amendment: Our elected officials will always be uncomfortable under the spotlight of public scrutiny, and from time to time they will attempt to violate the spirit if not the letter of the law by doing the public’s business in private – even to amend the law to turn the spotlight off.

We the people have no recourse but to insist that the concept be spelled out in constitutional language. This is not the first assault on open government, nor will it be the last.

It takes time to amend the state constitution, and there are issues that must be addressed more immediately. First and foremost, the committee to “more appropriately study” closing the doors of government must acknowledge that the law may need change to allow greater, not lesser, scrutiny. …

Second, legislative leaders must identify whose idea it was to introduce such language into the state budget. Inquiries have been stonewalled with mealy-mouthed expressions like “It wasn’t me, there were several requests, but I don’t recall who made them.” Bollocks. …

Third, we must secure commitments from our own representatives that they will support the Wisconsin tradition of open government.

Most of the media has not reported that this idea originated with the experience of a Democrat, Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D–Middleton), who spent $170,000 taxpayer dollars losing a lawsuit to prevent the MacIver Institute from seeing the email addresses of government employees emailing him about Act 10. State GOP leaders saw what happened with Erpenbach, realized that could happen to them too, and a bad idea was born.

The real beneficiaries of Open Records Law deform would have been incumbent legislators. Of course, the losers would be everyone else, including those of us whose taxes pay their salaries.

It seems to me that the only way to prevent the GOP from bringing it back, or Democrats from bringing up when they return to power in Madison sometime in the future, is to prevent them from doing that. That’s why an Open Meetings and Open Records constitutional amendment needs to be added to the state Constitution.