The Governor who Wouldn't Govern

The GRAMA bill of 2011 is HB 477. It exempts electronic communication of legislators from being open to the public and increases the fees for obtaining copies of records that are open to the public.

The Legislature passed HB 477 like a rushing wind and created a series of tornados in its wake. The response came not only from the news media but protesters arrived at the Capitol to express outrage, both at the content of the bill and the method it was carried out.

The people turned to their best line of defense against this breach of government transparency. The tool that gives the Executive Branch of government balance with the Legislative Branch is the Governor's veto power.

When Governor Herbert hesitated to answer the demands for a veto of HB 477, the legislators who signed on as co-sponsors of the bill called upon the Governor to keep his promise to support this legislation. Governor Herbert was in a quandary. If he vetoed the bill, that would anger the legislators who thought he had signed on. If he didn't veto it, he risked anger from voters.

Amid the tumult, the bill sponsors called it back in for an amendment. The amendment changed the date that it would take effect to mid-summer and required that the topic be studied in interim study sessions.

This gave the Governor an out. It wouldn't become the law for four months and maybe people would forget about it by then. He signed the bill. In doing so, he took himself out of the issue. Whatever happens or doesn't happen by the effective date in July, he has no veto power. He has taken himself out of the balancing act.

Unfortunately for him. the outcry didn't subside so he felt he had to explain himself. He claimed that the legislature would override his veto, resulting in a "bad law". How is that different from what we now have? He has signed what he called a bad law. It is just as possible to change any part of state law as it is to change this bill. It is, with his signature, the law.

If the Governor is cowed by the strength of the legislative leadership from vetoing what he admits is a bad law, there is no balance of power in state government.

The Governor should govern. If he is not willing to do so, we need someone who is.