HOW WE SEE IT: Staying Public Requires Heavy Burden

The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is one of the most important laws in the state, but the requests for public documents it protects are not always easy to fulfill.

Government, even at the local level, handles massive volumes of information. It should come as no surprise some requests to see some of that information will lead to a high volume of documents in response.

Sometimes, the person asking to see the information isn’t the nicest person in the world, or is the next potential political opponent.

Sometimes, requests for public information can be viewed as harassment. And sometimes it is.

The question, however, is whether the intention of the person requesting access to public documents matters.

Under the Freedom of Information Act,the state’s vaunted protector of the public’s right to know, the answer is traditionally this: It doesn’t matter one bit.

If a mayor spent $100,000 in public money redecorating his offce in City Hall, should the intentions of the person requesting copies of those receipts become a factor in whether the receipts are considered public? Let’s say the requester is a high school student who is writing a report on how budgeting works in city government. Is that a good motive? But what if the same request comes from someone the mayor believes to be a future candidate for his job? That potential opponent might use it against him, so those are bad intentions, right?

The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, which since 1967 has set out this state’s admirable stance the public’s business should be performed in a public and open manner, sets out generally clear tests to determine whether a requested document is public. Gauging the intentions of the requester isn’t one of those tests, and it never should be.

But what about harassment? In Tontitown, for example, an appointed recorder-treasurer, resigned two months into the job because of the time demand for responding to the frequent requests for public information to her office.

Resident Mick Wagner, instigator of much debate and strife in Tontitown, had not long before made a request for web access to all email sent using a tontitown.com email address. The result, according to Mayor Tommy Granata, would have been 22,000 email. Responding is a major task.

According to the FOIA, there is one circumstance in which a government may charge for staft time to produce public records (usually, only the actual cost of copies can be charged).

That’s for special requests of electronic records that must be compiled in a specialized way.

In such extreme cases, the law may allow for passing those costs along to the requester.

One that produces 22,000 email might just qualify.

Operating in full public scrutiny has a built-in burden. Open government is not easy, but it’s crucial. Using the law as a tool for harassment is wrong. But we must continue to view the Freedom of Information Act through the lens of those who created it. They knew it as a law and attitude critical to the public’s ability to keep a watchful eye on those empowered to govern. The vast majority of requests are fulfi lled without disrupting the government’s day-to-day business.

It’s worth remembering that keeping government public is part of that business.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/25/2012

Upcoming Events