With Oregon’s abysmal track record for responding to records requests, legislative action is crucial
From the moment a politician put pen to paper, there has been a reporter asking for a copy of the document.
Transparency in government is a hallmark of democracy, and public-records laws are fundamental to preserving the public’s constitutional right to government accountability.
But when the public is forced to wait extensive periods for records requests to be fulfilled or the charges attached to even digital documents are cost prohibitive, the spirit of transparency is trampled. And it happens regularly as journalists work to do their job as watchdogs to our lawmakers, our community and our tax dollars.
In many cases, journalists report little rhyme or reason as to how charges are assessed. Fee waivers appear arbitrary, and it’s often at the mercy of the agency’s discretion as to what is essential to the public interest. In addition to these cost and time obstacles, the state has instituted hundreds of exemptions to Oregon’s public-records laws to limit what the public is permitted to see.
Take the case of The Oregonian in 2015 when it wanted to see the electronic database of property recorded into evidence by the Portland Police Bureau. The fee from the bureau was $1 million. Even for The Oregonian, this was too steep. The paper narrowed its public-records request to a more manageable price and revealed a massive backlog of untested rape kits , which ultimately contributed to the passage of Melissa’s Law to ensure the timely testing of sexual assault forensic evidence.
That is just one of the more dramatic cases among countless reports that have relied on public records to shed light on an issue to create a solution.
Access to public records isn’t just a reporter’s prerogative; it’s the right of every Oregonian.
This year, numerous bills in the Oregon Legislature seek to alter the public’s access to public records, including reducing the costs to procure them and penalizing agencies that drag their feet in fulfilling the request.
House Bill 2345 would reduce public-records-request fees charged by state agencies by 50 percent for requests by media. It also requires a similar reduction or even a complete waiver of fees for news media requests made of local governments or local services districts, unless the local government opts out.
House Bill 2353 would award penalties to public-records requesters, plus reasonable attorney fees, if the public body incurs an undue delay or fails to be responsive to the request. This bill comes as a needed enforcement tool after 2017 legislation – also a response to slow or nonexistent response times – has proven insufficient.
Actually, at this point in time, it’s doubtful we could get much worse.
With an average response time of 148 days, Oregon ranks dead last among states’ response time to public-records requests, according to a study released recently by MuckRock , the nonprofit journalism collaborative.
In a similar study, the ACLU of Oregon conducted a two-year investigation into the practices of the state’s 36 district attorney’s offices. Starting in November 2016, the ACLU submitted public-records requests to all 36 offices, asking for their written policies on how they make decisions. The intent was to better understand the landscape of the state’s district attorney’s offices, how their decisions are guided and how they might differ from county to county.
What it found was considerable difficulty in accessing these basic policies. The ACLU found none of these policies online, where they could be easily reviewed by the public. And some counties charged for the most “elemental set of policies,” according to the ACLU’s report, “A Peek Behind the Curtain: Shining Some Light on District Attorney Policies in Oregon. ”
Most shocking, however, was that approximately one-third of the offices refused to respond to at least one of the ACLU’s records request.
These are our state’s legal authorities defying state law on public records.
As a result, House Bill 3224 , will direct district attorneys of each county to develop and adopt policies relating to discovery, charging decisions and case disposition and to make policies available to the public on its website.
And yet other bills are attempting to exempt even more information. One of the most egregious, fortunately, appears to have been left to die but is indicative of the battle to stifle public access.
Senate Bill 609 was introduced by Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose) on behalf of former Rep. Deborah Boone. It would have required people requesting public records to provide a reason why they wanted the documents. It would be up to the agency providing the documents to decide if the reason was “legitimate” for release. It was a clear attempt to quash public-records requests, particularly one to expose her emails with donors who contributed even after she announced her retirement from the Legislature.
After public outcry, and at her own request, the bill was left to die in this session.
Providing records to the public is a core function of government. It is not an add-on, a courtesy attached to customer service. The more we know and understand how our elected representatives make decisions, execute our laws and spend our money, the better people and communities are served. This is why we fight for it.
© 2019 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext. 404.
Street Roots is an award-winning, nonprofit, weekly newspaper focusing on economic, environmental and social justice issues. Our newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Learn more about Street Roots
