Readers tell us that one of the most important jobs we do for them is serve as a watchdog, reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of government.
That job stems from our historic First Amendment role and the Founding Fathers’ idea that a free press is essential. A government by and for the people should be subject to scrutiny of the people, they believed, and the press provides a venue for that scrutiny.
After all, we don’t expect private citizens to run a complicated analysis of test scores to detect suspected cheating, as our reporters did in the Atlanta Public Schools scandal. Nor do most citizens dig into land records the way we did to report on deals that led to an indictment and resignation among Gwinnett County commissioners.
Our access to government records and government meetings is no different from yours. But we sit in on city council meetings and analyze records so you don’t have to. And we fight to make sure your access remains strong.
This is why I found myself in the Capitol last week, monitoring the progress of a new open government bill being pushed by Attorney General Sam Olens.
Olens pledged as a candidate to tackle the Georgia Open Records and Open Meetings laws, which he believes are too complicated for the general public. Rep. Jay Powell of Camilla introduced a rewrite of the laws on Olens’ behalf last year and interested parties worked on the draft over the summer and fall. It’s now back before the Legislature.
Olens did not choose an easy task. While government transparency and openness are easy to embrace as concepts, there is plenty to fight over in the particulars. Elected officials and others in government support the concept of sunshine laws, of course, but wrestle with the implementation. Holding controversial discussions in public and making government documents public can be inefficient, inconvenient and even embarrassing. And there are times when being entirely open doesn’t make sense, such as when government is negotiating to buy property, when publicity could drive up the price.
Advocates for the rights of the public, such as The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and coalitions of press and broadcasters, believe the price of secrecy is high. We favor as much transparency as possible, even at the cost of some inefficiency. We oppose most exemptions that allow government to operate in secret and especially oppose broad exemptions such as the one the Legislature grants for its own operations.
Olens, formerly chairman of the Cobb County Commission, can see both sides. He presided over one of the most open governments in Georgia, and under his watch Cobb County routinely went further than others to comply with the requirements of the law. So he understands both the benefits of openness and the sometimes difficult job of operating in the sunshine.
Olens has done the tough work of bringing the parties together and hashing out a bill that addresses key concerns without going so far in any one direction to foster huge opposition. While I certainly wish the bill went further to enforce openness, it does clarify roles and responsibilities and address some areas that have been ruled on by the courts since the law was last significantly revised in 1999. It also addresses more modern practices, such as the extensive computerization of records and meetings via teleconference.
And while fines are rarely levied when a government violates these laws, the maximum fines would be increased from $500 to $1,000, with a fine of $2,500 for repeat offenses.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has been active in this process. I have been in several meetings with Olens, our access attorneys and others. We didn’t get everything we asked for in the rewrite — we got a laugh when we asked that the Legislature subject itself to the law — but at this point we are comfortable with the balance Olens has achieved.
We remain concerned about what happens next. There is huge interest in this bill — there was a standing-room-only crowd in the committee meeting this week. And testimony included suggestions that we believe would drive up the cost or complexity of obtaining records or give elected officials more leeway to operate in secret.
Too many times, we’ve seen lawmakers add exemptions and exceptions to the law. In the 13 years since the last major overhaul, at least 10 changes have been made that allow more secrecy.
Both Olens and Powell understand the risks and have pledged to withdraw their support for the bill if it is amended in a way that sets back openness and transparency. That’s a very important commitment and they should be commended for their work.
We’re also committed to monitoring the bill’s progress and reporting back to you what is happening in the process. We hope you will pay close attention. It is your rights that are at stake.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wants to explain openly to readers what we do and why. Public editor Shawn McIntosh writes a column every other week to provide insight into newsroom operations, the newspaper’s role in the community and the industry. Write McIntosh at insideajc@ajc.com or join the conversation on editor Kevin Riley’s Facebook page,
About the Author
