Open-records bills coming; results uncertain

By Bill Harlan, Journal staff | Thursday, January 03, 2008

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

South Dakota media groups want the state Legislature to open more government records, but some lawmakers are skeptical of details in proposed legislation.

"We've got to be careful about getting too grandiose," Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City said at an open-records briefing Thursday in Rapid City.

Associated Press Sioux Falls bureau chief Tena Haraldson, who organized the briefing, told the three lawmakers who attended the meeting, "You may get hit with more than one bill." She said South Dakota's current open-records rules were inadequate and confusing.

About a dozen journalists also attended the briefing, which was sponsored by the South Dakota Media Club and the South Dakota Newspaper Association.

One bill would establish an appeals procedure to use when access to records is denied. Administrative law judges at the state Board of Hearing Examiners would rule on disputes, Haraldson said, but the board would not have the authority to assess penalties. That would still be up to courts.

Another bill would turn state open-records law inside out. Current state law allows government officials to close any records they are not required to keep by law, Haraldson said. The new would presume records are open unless specifically closed. "That's done in 49 states and the federal government," Haraldson said.

Some of the proposals were developed by the state Government Openness Task Force, which included media, and government and law enforcement officials. The task force, which held its last meeting Dec. 27, has not yet endorsed a proposal.

Haraldson said most citizens want better access to state records, and she said many legislators supported at least parts of the proposals.

But Haraldson acknowledged that Gov. Mike Rounds opposes the measure to presume records are open.

State Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, also warned that open records in the era of identity theft raised public concern.

For example, Buckingham questioned whether ages should be released with voter-registration records. "I think you're going to get a little push back on that," Buckingham said. "People don't want their birth dates released."

Marriage and divorce records are currently open, but Buckingham said a woman who had escaped an abusive relationship might not want her name on a public record when she remarried. "What is the public interest in this record?" he asked.

"There's a reason that license is available," Haraldson said. She argued that a contract backed by government, conferring rights and responsibilities, should be public.

Haraldson said the open government task force also wrote a list of categories of exceptions to open records -- to protect against security threats, for example, or to protect proprietary economic-development information or personal information that could lead to identity theft.

Haraldson told lawmakers that South Dakota had the weakest open-records rules in the nation. "Most states have a statement of open government," she said. "Why not South Dakota?" She said most people support open records and don't know how difficult it is to get records in South Dakota.

Rep. Lust, who is an attorney, agreed the issue was important to media, "and rightfully so," but he questioned whether open records were a priority issue for most citizens.

Lust also predicted debates about details -- particularly about whether to close records based on categories of information or on lists of specific records. "One of those two is going to be the horse that carries the day," he said.

Last year, the Legislature rejected an open-records proposal, calling for a summer study session instead, and Haraldson admitted there is little chance all of the proposed bills would pass.

However, Rep. Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, said after the meeting, "You're making more headway this year than you think

Contact Bill Harlan at 394-8424 or bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com