Letters to the Editor

Commissioners' dinners smell

After reading your June 24 article ("Bradley warns about Sunshine Law") about Mayor Bradley's warning to former and current commissioners regarding the Sunshine Law, I couldn't help but chuckle at City Attorney Larry Brown stating that public officials should be discreet in how they approach the Sunshine Law.

That said, as witnessed by several Winter Park residents, apparently Commissioner Beth Dillaha and newly elected Commissioner Tom McMacken decided meeting at Winter Park's 310 Park South restaurant for dinner a few days before the June 14 commission meeting did not need to pass the discreet "smell test" as recommended by the city attorney.

And after listening to them support each other and voting against many of the mayor's proposed actions at Commission meetings, they would have a difficult time convincing me they were there only to enjoy a great meal and to show their support of sidewalk dining and people walking their dogs on the Avenue.

And speaking of being discreet, I applaud the city attorney for making it clear that he does not see any conflict of interest in representing Winter Park in the current negotiations with Orange County regarding commuter rail, while at the same time continuing to represent the county in other matters. Guess that's his version of passing the "smell test," right?

—Ed Sabori

Winter Park

Sunshine not a chore, but a privilege

Recently I attended the city of Winter Park's New Board Member orientation. I appreciate very much the time and energy that went into the educational event, and I believe that the volunteer service delivered by board members is an essential and valuable part of the city's governance process.

However, there was a "flavor" to the presentation that I found disconcerting. In my opinion, Florida's open records and open meeting laws (Sunshine Laws) are the best thing about our government in Florida. Thanks to these laws, we are protected from elected and appointed officials dealing in secrecy and we are the better for it.

Throughout this educational presentation on the specifics and practical application of the Sunshine Law, the law was frequently presented as onerous and unnecessarily burdensome. The benefits of the law were slighted and at times, even questioned as being contrary to the process of government. The focus was on the challenges associated with compliance, with the implication that the board members were being saddled with a duty that was more annoying than beneficial.

I recognize that city staff understands the benefits of the Sunshine Law, but can also understand that those who deal with time-consuming compliance on a daily basis might sometimes be frustrated.

Regardless, my suggestion is that when education of open government laws is the goal, we focus first on the much-needed benefits of Government in the Sunshine, and instruct compliance as a necessary component of this benefit, rather than an inconvenient chore.

We are fortunate to live in a state where the public's right to know is a matter of legal imperative. Dealing with the details is a small price to pay for open government.

—Kit Pepper

Winter Park

Abortion bills by the numbers

The Supreme Court determined in Roe v. Wade that abortion is a fundamental right, which means that access to abortion should have the same protections throughout our country and not vary based on where a woman lives. Yet in a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court upheld several state restrictions on abortion, finding that they did not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

From that point on, antiabortion advocates have fought hard to restrict abortion at the state level in any way they can. They introduce literally hundreds of state bills across the country each year aimed at limiting access to abortion and testing the limits of Roe. And each year they succeed in enacting a handful of those bills. Some 600 such laws have passed since 1995.

States currently have abortion laws that, among other things, mandate biased counseling and burdensome waiting periods, impose costly and unnecessary clinic regulations, require parental notification or consent, restrict funding for abortion, ban a safe pre-viability abortion procedure, and allow health care providers to refuse to provide needed medical care.

In some ways, this year is no different than any other — abortion opponents have once again introduced a multitude of bills to restrict abortion. But what has changed is that antiabortion activists have gained renewed momentum.

Antiabortion Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) brokered language in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act that all but invites states to ban coverage of abortion in private health insurance plans by "opting out" of abortion coverage in the state health insurance exchanges that must be established by 2014. Americans United for Life noted the opening and had model legislation ready to go the second the health reform measure was signed. The result: 29 states already have abortion opt-out bills in the pipeline for the 2010 and 2011 legislative sessions.

The sponsors of these bills claim that their legislation only restricts public funding of abortion care. But closer inspection reveals that these bills mimic the infamous Stupak Amendment, which abortion-rights proponents fought so hard to beat back in federal legislation, and will broadly limit private coverage of abortion in the states where these bills are enacted.

For the complete fact sheet, visit AmericanProgress.org.

—Jessica Arons and Alexandra Cawthorne

Center for American Progress