A tougher open-meetings law intended to prevent public bodies from conducting public business in private will take effect Aug. 7.

The change, proposed by the media, was approved by large margins in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly.

Under the state’s open-meetings law, closed or "executive" sessions can be held for a number of legitimate reasons, including matters of personnel, contract negotiations or pending litigation.

But surveys by the Colorado Press Association and the Associated Press showed that governmental bodies across the state often abuse open-meetings and open-records laws or don’t know about them, said Ed Otte, executive director of the Colorado Press Association.

"One-third of government agencies either did not know the information was public or refused to hand it over," Otte said.

To prevent public boards from abusing exemptions to the public’s right to be present at their deliberations, the new law, signed by Colorado Gov. Bill Owens on June 5, orders that executive sessions be recorded. The tape or minutes must be held for 90 days.

Under the new provisions, if a closed-door session is challenged by a citizen or the press as illegal, a judge will review the tape in chambers to determine the appropriateness of excluding the public from those deliberations.

If the discussion is found to be beyond the scope of the exemptions cited before the closed session occurred, or if it violates open-meeting laws, the information will be released to the public.

A government entity that loses an open-meetings challenge can be ordered to pay the attorney fees of the person seeking the public records. On the other end of the spectrum, members of the public who make frequent frivolous challenges can be ordered to pay the expenses of their opponents, according to the new language.

Clearly communicating to the public the specific legal reason for going into executive session is also stressed, and the board president must sign off on it, according to the language of the new law.

"There were a series of incidents in the state where executive sessions were being held without a clear reason as to why," said CPA attorney Steven Zansberg. "Some were held to discuss legal matters when an attorney was not even present at the meeting."

Recording the closed session gives the public a legal mechanism to ensure board compliance, whereas before there was no such process.

"I’m glad you’re doing a story because I do not think there is a lot of awareness of the changes," said 22nd Judicial District Judge Sharon Hansen. "The new law appears to just articulate what is already there, with the exception of the review process."

Hansen said a sudden rash of cases could be a concern because of costs, but that more time was needed after the law is enacted to see how it affects communities and their courts statewide.

Zansberg said in order to "prevent a floodgate of litigation," there must be a reasonable basis for a citizen to request a court review of closed meetings that are suspect.

Some boards’ reluctance to hand over public documents at citizen and press request, or discussing public business outside of the allowed exemptions in the open-meetings law, prompted the state legislature to overwhelmingly approve the bill, lobbyists said.

Otte said that an increasing number of phone calls to the CPA concerning closed sessions led to the crafting of a statute clarifying what can and cannot be discussed in executive session.

"Citizens, and our members, were calling more and more, and board members who felt uncomfortable with executive sessions they participated in were also calling, so we felt it was time," Otte said. "I think it holds boards more accountable."

Under Colorado’s government system, county, municipal, school districts and special districts all fall under the open-meetings law and its recent revisions. In Montezuma County, all 24 special districts are affected, in addition to the county commission, school boards and the Dolores, Mancos and Cortez municipal councils.

The tendency to retire into executive session just because a certain issue causes controversy is especially disturbing to news reporters and the public they represent.

"Sometimes there is an underlying theme that the easiest way to govern is out of earshot of the public so that it appears there is no contention, which is seldom the case," Otte said. "Having a healthy debate with contrasting opinions gives the public a voice and helps to explain why elected officials make the decisions they do."

Legitimate reasons to enter into executive sessions still stand For instance, if a legal strategy or real-estate purchase under negotiation is made public, it could jeopardize the board’s position to protect taxpayer assets.

Also, issues regarding individual employees are often held in executive session to protect the employee’s rights. But, if an employee prefers it, the hearing must be held in open session.

A motion or board decision cannot be voted on in closed session.

"I do not have a problem with it because we keep them (closed sessions) to a minimum and within the legal boundaries," said Randy Smith, chairman of the Montezuma County Hospital District board.