Law prods public officials toward transparency
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
5:01 a.m. Sunday, April 22, 2012
Reprinted with permission
Cheryl Miller has been hammering at a proverbial stone wall that she sees standing between her and the local school district.
Miller is among parents in DeKalb County who’ve been digging for information about a decision they find repugnant: allowing cell towers to be erected at several schools. They have been unable to get all they want despite using Georgia’s open records and open meetings law, but on Tuesday, Gov. Nathan Deal signed an overhaul into effect that might help them.
Miller and others who’ve fought for information say it’s a move, if a small one, toward more transparency. “Anything is a step in the right direction,” she said, “but there’s a lot that needs to be addressed.”
The new law lowers the burden of proof for claims that records were withheld illegally and meetings held improperly. And it requires that minutes be kept for closed-door meetings, so that if a complaint is filed, a judge will have a record to determine whether the meeting should have been open.
“It makes it a lot easier for litigating citizens to get into court with a viable argument,” said Hollie Manheimer, who runs the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, a pro-transparency organization.
The rewrite of the open records law eliminates some reasons governments have used to withhold electronic records, and it reduces the cost of copying paper documents from a quarter per page to a dime.
But it also makes more things private when a quorum of public officials is present, such as for ceremonial events including funerals. During such events, however, the officials can’t discuss government business or take action.
The rewrite was a priority for Attorney General Sam Olens. He sought opinions from Manheimer and others, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The revision gives the attorney general — and state residents — more clout by increasing fines for repeat offenders to as much as $2,500, five times the previous maximum.
Tricia Knor of Cobb County said the changes should make it easier to “put the fear of God in people so they’ll behave.”
Knor filed a complaint with the attorney general last year after discovering that Cobb school board members had discussed school business via email.
Olens’ office ruled the school board had come close to violating open meetings law but that it would be difficult to prove. The law at the time required evidence of “knowing and willful” acts, a difficult legal standard because it requires proof of ill intent. The school board got a public scolding and promised to behave.
That was little comfort to Knor, who said unpunished behavior was unlikely to change.
The new law allows the attorney general, or any resident, to bring a civil complaint with an easier burden of proof: The plaintiff must show that officials met illegally and acted “negligently.”
“It’s a great step in the right direction,” Knor said. “Is it going to stop all this? You hope.”
Matthew Cardinale, who runs the Atlanta Progressive News website, said the law takes “two steps forward, two steps back.”
He appealed an Atlanta City Council vote to the Georgia Supreme Court and won. The court ruled the City Council broke the law when it failed to record how each member voted on a measure to limit public comment at meetings.
“We have now legislatively banned secret votes,” Cardinale said. He thinks increasing the fines officials would pay should prove to be a deterrent. He dislikes the new exemptions shielding certain gatherings of elected officials from public scrutiny.
“The good things and the bad things kind of balance each other out,” Cardinale said.
Amy Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association, said the law is clearer now. Clerks in smaller cities don’t have easy access to a lawyer to interpret the law for them, she said, so making the law “easy for them to follow is a good thing.”
Nydia Tisdale, a Roswell resident who has tangled with officials in Cumming and Forsyth County, agrees. “I think it puts it into layman’s terms and less legalese, so it’s more understandable,” she said. “You have a right to read what your government officials are reading and writing, and you have a right to record their activity.”
Even so, officials still have their own interpretations, and Tisdale may be one of the first to test the new law. She has already used it to file a complaint with the attorney general.
On Tuesday, hours after Deal signed the law into effect, Cumming Mayor H. Ford Gravitt stopped Tisdale from recording a City Council meeting. A video she posted on YouTube captured the act. “Remove the camera,” Gravitt told the police chief. “We don’t allow filming inside the City Hall unless it’s for specific reasons.”
The law said before, and still does, that visual and sound recording during open meetings “shall be permitted.”
Gravitt said afterward that he thought Tisdale’s camera and tripod were “disruptive” and that it would be a public safety issue if everyone brought such equipment into a crowded meeting.
“We’re just going to have to live with it,” he said of the law. “We’ll just wait and try to change some of it next year.”
-----
Variable sunshine
People who use Georgia’s new open records and open meetings law will find several important changes:
● The cost of copying records goes down from a quarter per page to a dime.
● The burden for proving officials broke the law is easier with the introduction of a civil penalty.
● The fine for violators has been increased to as much as $2,500 for repeat offenders.
● A quorum of public officials may gather privately now to travel to and attend ceremonial events such as funerals. Public officials, however, can’t discuss official business or take action.
● Executive sessions must now be recorded.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We want to know what you think. Leave your respectful comments here!