It’s pretty simple: Open government is the best government. That’s why state legislators should approve Senate Bill 70.

The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Marci Francisco, of Lawrence, and Republican state Sen. Molly Baumgardner, of Overland Park, would require public boards to provide more specificity before going into executive session.

The bill is important for a couple of reasons. First, the public deserves to know, with reasonable specificity, the reason public boards need to meet in secret. Second, it’s good for board members to be reminded each time they shut the public out to limit their closed-door discussions to the specific topic at hand.

As it stands, Kansas law provides 16 justifications for public boards to meet in closed session. The most commonly used justifications are personnel matters, consultation with an attorney and the acquisition of property. Senate Bill 70 reduces the number of justifications to 14.

Current law requires only that a board state the justification for closing the meeting. For instance, a school board could simply make a motion to go into closed session for personnel matters. But personnel matters is a pretty broad topic that doesn’t provide the public or the board members with enough information.

SB 70 would change the law to require a motion to go into closed session to include a “statement describing the subjects to be discussed during the closed or executive meeting; the justification listed in subsection (b) for closing the meeting; and (3) the time and place at which the open meeting shall resume.”

SB 70 also changes the language of justifications to clarify that the scope of executive sessions is limited to discussion of the specific topic only. Boards are not allowed to take action in executive session.

Francisco pursued the executive session bill partially at the behest of Dr. Alan Cowles, of Lawrence. Cowles testified Thursday at a hearing on the bill before the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. Cowles said he became interested in the legislation after being frustrated by a local board that went into executive session without making clear what was to be discussed. Cowles said he was trying to stay on top of an issue but could never be sure when that issue was going to be addressed in executive session.

As written, the current law on open meetings is open to abuses. That’s not all too surprising; it’s often easier and more comfortable for board members to meet behind closed doors to address sometimes difficult issues. In such an environment, closed sessions can become a preferred option rather than an option of last resort.

There’s no drawback to SB 70. It simply clarifies open meetings language to make sure that public boards state clearly and more specifically why they need to close their meetings to the public. If it results in fewer closed meetings, then that’s a good thing.

SB 70 serves the public good and should be approved.