Editorial: Good news, bad news on Open Records Act

The good news is that someone in the state legislature has recognized the state Open Records Act has become unwieldy over the years as lawmakers have adopted numerous exemptions to the law, exemptions that limit the amount of information the public can get from the array of state and local governmental and quasi-governmental institutions.

The bad news - or, to be more fair, the potentially bad news - is that the "someone" is House Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram.

It is certainly encouraging that Richardson, according to a report last week in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, has "expressed frustration that lawmakers seem to be continually carving out exceptions to the Georgia Open Records Act."

Also according to the Atlanta newspaper, Richardson suggested that more comprehensive open-records legislation might be needed. The speaker went on to say he planned to look into the Open Records Act between now and the start of the next legislative session.

Less encouraging, though, is the fact that Richardson appears to be an at least somewhat unlikely advocate for the public's right to know what public officials and agencies are doing. In the 2007 legislative session, Richardson got a resolution through the House that halted the practice of allowing credentialed journalists onto the House floor while that chamber was in session to ask representatives to leave the floor for an interview.

Another less-than-encouraging aspect of Richardson's planned look at the Open Records Act can be found in a review of the circumstances surrounding his proposal two years ago to overhaul the state's tax system. In the months prior to the 2008 legislative session, Richardson unveiled what he called the Georgia's Repeal of Every Ad valorem Tax plan, a proposal to replace property taxes with a statewide sales tax. The problem was, the so-called GREAT Plan morphed from one thing to another as Richardson touted it across the state in the months prior to the legislative session, and ultimately nothing came of it.

Given Richardson's demonstrated dislike of the media - which often exercises the public's right to know by proxy, and thus is keenly interested in having open-records statutes that are as broad as possible - there is real reason to be concerned about what, exactly, he might mean when he talks about a comprehensive review of the Open Records Act.

The speaker's penchant for grand plans also might be problematic in connection with the Open Records Act. If, as happened with the GREAT Plan, his vision for the Open Records Act changes as the legislative session draws closer, there's a real danger that any legislation that might result will be vastly different from what Richardson originally proposes, and vastly different from what the public was expecting from the legislature.

Still, with the assumption that Speaker Richardson is contemplating a good-faith effort to improve the Open Records Act by making a wider array of information more readily available to the public, the best approach for the speaker to take would be to act on the presumption that every piece of paper or electronically stored information produced by any state or local governmental or quasi-governmental agency should be available to the public, unless an exceedingly compelling case can be made to exempt it from disclosure.

And, again with the assumption that Richardson is talking about a good-faith effort on the Open Records Act, that effort should include convening a group of journalists, media attorneys and activist citizens to get their input on how to improve the law.

If it's handled correctly, Mr. Speaker, revamping the Open Records Act could be a real service to the people of Georgia.