A bill that passed the state Senate and is barreling toward passage in the House would expand an exemption to the state’s public records law in the name of economic development, but open government advocates fear the bill could be used to justify secrecy in far more than recruiting companies.
The bill, SB 323, would allow any state agency to conceal documents about economic development projects involving business expansions of $25 million in investment or 50 jobs. After a deal is signed or negotiations terminated, the records would become public.
The law currently gives this exemption solely to the state Department of Economic Development. Critics of the bill say it is overly broad and should be narrowed to explicitly state that it only covers projects under the direction of that department.
The measure alters a 2012 compromise between Deal's office, the media and other open government groups, that strengthened some parts of the state's sunshine law but also provided some secrecy for the state's recruiters. That change provided limited protections to allow the state's Department of Economic Development to negotiate with companies without those talks becoming public.
The aim of that legislation was to keep other states from learning what Georgia offered companies and to provide companies protection about sensitive corporate secrets.
Competitors, however, have found a way around that 2012 compromise by searching for records from other state agencies, such as public colleges that also interact with top recruits, said State. Sen. Mike Dugan, R-Carrollton, a bill sponsor.
Other states have similar protections to keep their negotiations secret, he said.
“We need to be on the same playing field as they are,” Dugan said.
But Dugan said he could not cite any specific prospect Georgia lost as a result of this back door around the 2012 compromise.
SB 323 passed the Senate Feb. 23 by a 47-4 vote, with two Republicans and two Democrats opposed. The bill is backed by a group of powerful Republican state senators including Dugan, Bill Jackson and Butch Miller, all floor leaders for Gov. Nathan Deal. State Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta, who chairs the body’s economic development and tourism committee, is also a sponsor.
Beach said retailer Kmart was one company in which the Georgia Open Records Act was used to tap into sensitive negotiations. The instance of that recruitment being made public appears to have occurred in 2004, eight years before the current law was enacted.
First Amendment advocates fear the wording of the latest bill is overly broad and might be used by any arm of the state government to conceal activities that it claims will create jobs, such as government contracts or road building.
“We believe the bill as drafted opens the door to abuse of the exception to open records provided for major state economic development projects,” Hollie Manheimer, the executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, wrote to Dugan in a letter dated Tuesday.
She suggested language in the bill to narrow it only to projects under consideration by the state Department of Economic Development.
Tom Clyde, a lawyer for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a Georgia First Amendment Foundation board member, said “when we are talking about withholding records from the public, it’s very important that the language be written as narrowly as possible.”
Deal’s office declined to comment on this pending legislation, as did a spokeswoman for the state Department of Economic Development.
Dugan and Beach said the intent was to narrow the bill to only include official economic development department projects.
State Sen. Vincent Fort, D-Atlanta, one of four opposing votes in the senate, said he is against any narrowing of the state’s open government laws. But this bill in particular could have unintended consequences, he said.
“To me it’s an obvious matter of transparency,” Fort said. “The prying eyes of competitors are excluded, but also the public and the media is excluded from knowing, and I don’t think that is ever good to exclude the public from knowing what is being done with their money.”
Dugan said he doesn’t believe the bill as written would allow for broader interpretations, but he said he would be willing to meet with open government advocates to address concerns.
About the Author
