It should come as little secret to regular readers that governments often work to confound the public’s right to know when asked to make available information that might embarrass or cause them legal troubles.
In too many disputes over access to information under the Colorado Open Records Act, citizens, advocacy groups and media organizations don’t proceed, fearing high court costs and attorney fees. Even in cases where a government body is acting improperly by denying records or violating open meetings laws, the only alternative is to go to court.
That’s a real problem in a state that recently earned an abysmal rating from the Center for Public Integrity for its open records environment. And as The Denver Post’s John Frank wrote recently, other attempts to bolster transparency during this year’s legislative session didn’t go very far.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, and our state’s lawmakers ought to stand with the public and demand far better.
Last week, Jeff Roberts, who directs the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, noted that at least 26 states offer alternate methods of settling disputes over open records — without going to court.
The coalition commissioned research that looked across the country to see how states handle such disputes. Its findings are revealing.
In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich recently signed into law a bill that allows residents to challenge governments without resorting to lawyers. For a $25 filing fee, an agent of the Ohio Court of Claims will attempt mediation. If that bringing together of parties doesn’t solve things, the court is to issue a binding order, or refer the matter to regular litigation.
The intent of the new law is to speed things up and increase accountability, which everyone will say they are for — until you file an open-records request.
“This bill is intended to facilitate faster, easier and less expensive access to government for taxpayers,” said Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, when the legislation was introduced. “It’s about keeping government open, accountable and accessible to our citizens.”
In Iowa since 2012, attorneys for a public information board settle most public records disputes, often in less than 24 hours.
In Connecticut, a freedom of information commission hears complaints, has the power to order disclosure of public records and nullify decisions made during meetings that violated open meeting laws.
Such measures do cost money. Ohio’s new law is expected to cost but $650,000. And certainly it is regrettable that taxpayers should have to pay for a service that makes available what governments should have provided on their own.
But the mere existence of such a mediation board should go a long way toward spurring loose records that by law should be made available.
Open records laws are meant to serve the public’s right to know, and thereby create goodwill and trust between citizens and their public institutions. Given Colorado’s poor track record in this area, we hope Coloradans will demand more from their lawmakers next session.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
