"I think transparency in government is incredibly important," Halcro said. "I really just wish the public could hear some of the comments that were made behind closed doors."

Halcro was a maverick in his caucus then, and his views would still be out of the mainstream if he were serving now.

Advertisement

Most lawmakers say they need to be able to talk about political strategy in private.

They overwhelmingly approved legislation this year that for the most part blesses the current practice of closed-door meetings for minority and majority caucuses.

"These are historic, traditional elements of discussion," Rep. Norm Rokeberg, R-Anchorage, said during a hearing on the bill. To have the media there second-guessing operations, "it's like Monday morning quarterbacking," he said.

The Alaska Legislature is not unique.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 29 states at least one of the legislative caucuses closes most or all of its meetings to the press and public.

It's not uncommon for state legislatures to exempt themselves from freedom of information laws that apply to local governments and the executive branch, said Rebecca Daugherty of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The U.S. Congress does it, too, she said.

"That doesn't mean that it's not all that noxious," Daugherty said.

The bill that passed Alaska's Legislature says caucuses can discuss political strategy behind closed doors.

The Republican-majority caucus in the House has 28 members, while the Democratic group has 12 members. In the Senate, the Republican caucus has 12 members, and Democrats have eight.

The bill defines political strategy broadly and includes an exemption for "discussion of issues in the context of political strategy."

Critics say that's a loophole that lets legislators debate just about anything as long as they sprinkle in some strategy talk.

So what goes on behind the closed doors?

"I think what you're missing is the name calling," said former Rep. Jim Whitaker. "It reaches that level of very straightforward discussion."

The Fairbanks Republican resigned his seat last year when he was elected mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. He said opening the doors could help build public trust. But he does not believe closed caucuses are improper.

"It is appropriate to be as open as possible, yet still recognize that there are times when it's appropriate to shut the door, take the gloves off and have a discussion that is not comported as ladies and gentlemen," Whitaker said.

Tempers do flare, and behavior that can be described as bullying sometimes occurs, Whitaker said.

But some of the public's worst suspicions about what goes on in secret are unfounded, according to several lawmakers.

For instance, both Whitaker and Halcro said talk of casting votes to please powerful lobbyists or campaign contributors never came up in House majority caucuses.

They also say votes were never taken, although Whitaker acknowledged lawmakers can leave the room with a pretty good idea where people stand.

Talks are not entirely confined to strategy, but there is less debate of substantive issues than the public might suspect, Whitaker said.

It can be hard to tease out strategy from substance, he said.

For instance, a caucus could debate whether to overrule a committee chairman who won't hear a bill. But it would be hard to talk about that without also talking about the merits and the politics of the legislation, Whitaker said.

Several lawmakers said they remind colleagues when talks stray too far beyond strategy.

When lawmakers are asked what strategy is, they often give as examples discussion of when bills will come up for a vote or in what order they will be placed on the calendar.

"Timing is everything in politics," said Sen. Scott Ogan, R-Palmer.

Senate majority caucuses tend to be shorter and more confined to strategy than House caucuses, said Ogan, who formerly served in the House.

The House Democrats are the only group that regularly opens meetings to the public, although they also close the door at times, particularly during budget negotiations.

Typically, they talk about bills on the calendar that day and whether they want to delay their passage for a day or two. They'll also discuss amendments they plan to offer.

House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz contends that while more openness would be uncomfortable for the other groups, it would produce a better product.

"People tend to behave better when there's more scrutiny," he said.

Legislators themselves would also benefit, he said. He and Halcro said that in closed meetings, leaders may mischaracterize the position of another group in the Legislature.

Because of the secrecy, the outside group has no way of knowing that and correcting the perception. That gives caucus leaders too much power to control the flow of information, Halcro said.

He recalls a budget discussion one year in which some lawmakers objected to a cut in school funding. They were told the House was doing that so when the Senate restored the cut, it would appear the Senate was increasing money for schools.

That bit of strategy meant school officials took time away from their jobs to lobby furiously for about three weeks for money lawmakers already knew they were going to restore, Halcro said.

He's also seen lawmakers advocate for budget cuts in caucus, then protest in front of their constituents when they lose services, Halcro said.