Cantonal Council LU Lucerne's administrative activities to become more transparent
Official information should be easier to view in the canton of Lucerne. On Monday, the cantonal council voted in favor of introducing the principle of public access, supporting the rather cautious regulation proposed by the cantonal government.
09.09.2024, 11:15
09.09.2024, 16:00
SDA
In future, anyone wishing to inspect a document at the canton will no longer have to claim an interest worthy of protection. Instead, the authorities should justify the interests worthy of protection for which they wish to refuse access to a document. It should be possible to appeal against the decision. If a request involves considerable effort, a fee should be charged. Municipalities can create their own regulations.
All parliamentary groups made it clear when the bill was introduced that they support the move towards transparency. Lucerne is one of the last cantons that does not allow simple access to official documents.
A bird in the hand
Speakers from the Centre Party, SVP and FDP praised the government council's proposed regulation on the principle of public access as "balanced" and "coherent", while the GLP, SP and above all the Greens criticized it overall as not being citizen-friendly enough. However, the SP and GLP accepted that Lucerne would initially only receive the sparrow and not the dove when it comes to the principle of public access, as Maria Pilotto (SP) put it.
The Greens, on the other hand, wanted to refer the bill back to the government for revision. Rahel Estermann criticized that the proposed principle of publicity did not deserve its name. With the argument of wanting to avoid a delay, however, parliament rejected the referral by a clear 97 votes to 11.
Motions with no chance
Amendments also had no chance in the plenary session. The GLP and the Greens wanted a clearer definition of the interests worthy of protection in order to reduce the scope for interpretation. Mario Cozzio (GLP) thus campaigned in vain for the federal solution, which was rejected by Parliament by 74 votes to 35.
Even under the principle of public access, there should be no access to minutes of non-public meetings. The Cantonal Council supported this regulation proposed by the government by 78 votes to 27. The Greens criticized in vain that it was wrong to exclude entire categories of documents from the principle of public access.
No arbitration procedure
If a request for access is rejected, the applicant can request an appealable decision and take legal action. The Cantonal Council confirmed this route proposed by the government. It rejected the free arbitration procedure demanded by the Greens and SP by 74 votes to 30.
The Cantonal Council also confirmed by a similar vote that not every request for access to files should be free of charge. For example, a fee should be charged for requests that take more than an hour to process.
Isabelle Kunze (SVP) defended the fee, saying that implementing the principle of public access would involve a lot of effort. The Greens and SP, on the other hand, criticized the regulation as "prohibitive". Jörg Meyer (SP) argued in vain that transparency was a duty of the state towards its citizens and not a mercy.
After the first reading, the Greens requested that the bill be rejected because it would not bring about the desired cultural change. However, the Cantonal Council adopted the amendment to the law by 100 votes to 10.
