We had grave reservations about a proposal that would have made it more difficult to find out what our public servants in state government were up to.
So, we were glad to hear Monday that the measure, being shaped by House Majority Leader Alice Madden, likely will die before it’s ever introduced.
The bill would have modified Colorado’s open records laws to, among other things, make it easier to shield some lawmakers’ e-mails from public scrutiny. It also would have erected barriers to getting information, such as requiring proof of Colorado residency.
Even if the idea is dropped this year, we imagine it will return in some form in the future as lawmakers try to get a handle on the increasing number of requests for public information.
If it does, lawmakers should find ways to encourage people to participate in government, not shut them out.
Madden, D-Boulder, said the draft measure was an effort to curb “fishing expeditions” that take up a lot of staff time and sometimes end with the requester not even picking up the materials. But in the month since the draft was written, Madden said she has come to realize how difficult it would be to target these situations.
“I want to protect the Sunshine laws in this state but I’d also like the requesters to know that these laws aren’t there for their amusement,” she said.
Madden and others are concerned about the robust community of bloggers and Web-based journalists, some of whom have a political point of view, making more records requests.
Political orientation should not be a consideration in access to records. Bloggers and other non-traditional journalists have the right to seek information about how government is functioning. It is, after all, public information.
We understand that the digital age may require certain tweaks in the law, but the principles should remain the same.
For instance, lawmakers are concerned that records requests sent via e-mail might be diverted by spam filters, so Madden’s draft talked about requiring requests be delivered in person or by mail. That seems reasonable, though certified mail seems to be an unnecessary obstacle.
Another provision would have allowed government to refuse to release any documents containing confidential information, such as Social Security numbers. Now, that sensitive information is simply redacted.
One of the more troubling modifications would have lowered the standard applied to whether “constituent correspondence” could be exempt from public records requests.
Now, the law says if a communication “clearly implies” it’s meant to be confidential, it can be exempt. The change would have exempted anything that a “reasonable person would expect” to be confidential.
Too much could fly under the radar with such a change. We’ve seen no compelling reason for a standard revision.
In fact, there has been little justification for the revisions beyond the aggravation of a few legislators.
Democracy thrives because it is a participatory and accountable system of government. Open records are an important part of that, and we’re glad to hear this draft measure likely will wither away before seeing the light of day.
