Public bodies' instinct to conceal vs. the press's instinct to uncover
Daniels explains that the natural tendency of public bodies to conceal the content of their meetings results in conflict with the press.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Frank Daniels Jr., September 11, 2002. Interview R-0320. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- KATHLEEN KEARNS:
-
Do you remember Ed Hollowell?
- FRANK DANIELS, JR.:
-
Oh, yes. The lawyer. Inept. Inept. Built a hell of a practice doing
hospital legal work. He was their lawyer on the open meetings, open
records question. He didn't know what he was doing. Bill
Lassiter just beat the shit out of him. He's dead now.
- KATHLEEN KEARNS:
-
He was your attorney?
- FRANK DANIELS, JR.:
-
He was our lawyer. He was a First Amendment lawyer throughout North
Carolina. He worked for the Press Association and usually if you had a
First Amendment issue, on open records and open meetings, he was
responsible for writing much of the open records and open meetings laws.
Particularly after this case, there were always attempts to limit the
effect of the case by the legislature, to say, "Well, you can
have a closed meeting if you do certain things. And at that meeting, you
may discuss personnel matters or attorney-client matters, or contracts,
and acquisitions." I believe that was all of them. And then
they started trying to broaden that out. There's a natural
tendency on the part of public bodies not to want to have open meetings.
It's just natural. And so it's a constant
conflict.
