Wyoming Liberty Group
Recently the Wall Street Journal ran a story about how the gasoline tax is becoming less and less relevant as a means of funding our highways:
The trials and tribulations of SF 25, while of less monetary concern than the ethanol bill, matched all the legislative drama and for some legislators took on a more personal tone.
The bill was the product of debates over Wyoming’s antiquated open records statutes. Wyoming’s open records laws, enacted in 1969 as the Wyoming Public Records Act, define what government information is accessible to the public. Recent court battles over the definition of the law highlighted the need for revisions to the existing statutes. During last year’s interim, legislators requested representatives of Wyoming’s media and local government lobbying interests come together and craft a compromise bill both sides could live with.
What is the rub?
Wyoming has received a significant amount of attention from Washington and the national press alleging the state has become a safe haven for companies specializing in money laundering, embezzling and elicit activities. According to Deputy Secretary of State Patricia O’Brien Arp, the same regulations that make Wyoming a business-friendly state also leave it susceptible to fraud. New laws intended to clean out many of the illegal activities were enacted in 2007 and 2008, but the Secretary of State’s Office says evolving criminals and schemes require updated enforcement statutes.
by JP Eichmiller
Wyoming press representatives are hoping to reach a compromise with local agency officials by the end of August on disputed legislation regarding open records and meetings.
The Wyoming Senate rejected two House bills during the 2011 Legislative Session intended to provide greater transparency and access to government information and meetings.
Senator Enzi addressed the Wyoming Senate and House Friday January 14th. His message was to trust the “legislative process.”
He cited a U. S. Senate Democrats’ attempt to avoid the normal legislative process of discussing bills in committee. This ultimately would have cost the US taxpayers an additional $7.1 billion. You might think the necessity of committee discussion is so obvious that it does not need defending, but sticking to his guns regarding “committee discussion” put Senator Enzi in the crosshairs of the national press and drew the wrath of many Americans during the recent Lame Duck Session.