Jackson Free Press

This is the week when media love to talk about "sunshine" and openness in government. (See my earlier blog post about how The Clarion-Ledger mangled their sunshine story earlier this week, a point we've been trying to make to The Ledger for a while now.) But all that talk does little good if citizens don't have the information you need to help us fight these battles on your behalf. I urge you all to spend some time with the Society of Professional Journalists' Freedom of Information section of this site. This is one of the resources we journalists use to stay on top on both rights, and potential pitfalls, in open government. I've fought these battles for years, and when the public isn't paying attention, we see the same problems in state after state:

2. Government officials who don't understand the law.
3. Government agencies that charge exorbitant fees for copying (like $1 a page) or hourly rates for compiling information (instead, for instance, allowing the reporter or citizen to make the copies themselves in the room with someone else).
4. Government agencies that abuse clauses that allow them "up to" 14 days if the information is stored off-site or in another manner that merits delay.

When not challenged, these practices become the norm.

Here in Mississippi, the procedures vary widely depending on (a) who the government official is and (b) whether they like you or not. For instance, I've had elected officials let me go through personal files and copy anything I want, and then I've had others try to charge me $2 a page and $200 in staff time for a few documents. (One of the best agencies I deal with locally is the Hinds County Circuit Clerk, who provides a free copier; the worst is a tie between Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's office and the City of Jackson/Jackson Police Department (especially under Melton.

We need consistency in how public-records laws are handled. Our state law, as I pointed out in the earlier post, is decent, but it is written in a confusing manner, probably purposefully to give certain agencies a way to get around it (like on the 14-day delay that too many, but not all, morph into they have 14 days to provide anything, which is the slap in the face of sunshine in government).

We should take lessons from other states that do this better. For instance, look at these findings from an study of open-records problems there by the Indiana attorney general:

There are four basic complaints from the public regarding the open records law:
(1)The timeliness of agency responses to requests for records. The timeliness
of lawsuits to enforce the law due to the uncertainty of citizens as to how to
proceed after a request is denied. (2) The cost of initiating a lawsuit to enforce
the law. (3) The discrepancy in copying fees between agencies. (4) The law
does not reflect new technology.
< Other states have compliance boards that act upon complaints against the state
and local units for denial of disclosure.
< There are four available options: (1) Give ombudsmen the authority to receive
complaints and issue opinions. (2) Create an administrative board for
ombudsmen to present complaints to on an as needed basis. Mr. Modisett and
the Committee discussed what other remedies may be available if a complaint is
denied by the administrative board or an ombudsman. (3) Set copying fees at
the lowest level possible that would still allow agencies to recover costs. (4)
Amend the public access laws to address new technology.
Sue Anne Gilroy, Secretary of State, explained her desire for an open model of
government, where the public is provided with the technology necessary to obtain easy
access to records. She cited as examples of this open model of government, the
election division and the corporations division of the Secretary of State's Office which
provide computer access to public records. Secretary of State Gilroy discussed her
unsuccessful attempt to reduce administrative fees in the last session of the General
Assembly. She commented that political partisanship must be set aside in order to
resolve the public access issue.3

Previous Commentsshow

BTW, this is *huge* sunshine news from the White House. The Bush administration had so eroded the concept of open government, making it harder for us to fight these battles locally. Per AP: The Obama administration is ready to tell federal agencies to release records to the public unless foreseeable harm would result, a Justice Department official said Thursday. Attorney General Eric Holder has approved new guidelines fleshing out President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, the official said. This person spoke anonymously because the official announcement has not been made. The guidelines were expected to be released later Thursday, amid Sunshine Week, an annual national observation by journalism groups and other organizations to promote open government and freedom of information. The new standard essentially returns to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It would replace a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department would defend any sound legal argument for withholding records. Justice is responsible for government-wide guidance on how to implement the records law because it defends agencies in court if they are sued by people who disagree with a decision to withhold records. Under the Holder standard, Justice lawyers would not defend a decision to withhold records unless their release could be shown to produce foreseeable harm. The new standards were also expected to encourage agencies to release more documents where the law leaves the decision to their discretion – an amplification of Obama's order that they adopt a "presumption for disclosure." Very good news.

DonnaLadd

Mar 19 2009