Task force will study changes in open records law
Posted: Thursday, August 16, 2007
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A task force set up by Attorney General Larry Long agreed Wednesday to work on improving the South Dakota laws that determine which state and local government documents are open to the public.
The Open Government Task Force, which includes members from state and local government agencies and news organizations, will discuss rewriting the overall legal definition of public records. At its next meeting Sept. 26 in Sioux Falls, the group also will look at provisions for keeping confidential some information dealing with security or personal privacy.
The task force likely will address other issues, such as procedures for resolving disputes about whether records are open, at later meetings. Some of the recommendations will go to the 2008 South Dakota Legislature.
The panel's work will be based on a study of government records just completed by the attorney general's office.
Long said an official in Gov. Mike Rounds' administration told him earlier Wednesday that the administration also intends to write a bill based on the recently published study of government records.
"He said there was a bill being drafted over there to implement the recommendations in the report," Long said.
The task force will work to suggest its own version of an open records bill because it's too early to tell whether the governor's version will "come to fruition," Long said. "If we're all working toward the same goal, that would be a good thing."
Long's office worked for two years to determine what records are kept by state agencies and local governments in South Dakota and which of those records are now open. The Legislature provided some money to help complete the study, but lawmakers refused to create a special state commission to make recommendations based on the study.
The attorney general then decided to reactivate the Open Government Task Force, which he appointed several years ago to look at issues dealing with open meetings and records.
Current state law generally provides that government records are open if an agency is required by law to keep those records. Other parts of the law specifically designate some records as closed because they deal with criminal investigations, personal information on health and other subjects, and business secrets.
Dave Bordewyk, general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper Association, said he would like to see state law rewritten to presume all records are open unless the law specifically provides that they be closed.
Some representatives of state and local government agencies indicated they believe the current law is working pretty well.
But Tena Haraldson, bureau chief for The Associated Press in North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, said changes are needed because South Dakota is the only state in the nation without a constitutional provision or law stating that government will be open to the people.
"I think that's an embarrassment and a shame," Haraldson said.
Government exists for the benefit of the public, Haraldson said. "The public has the inherent right to know what's going on."
Assistant Attorney General Diane Best, who headed the study of government records, said the study made a lot of agencies re-examine what documents they manage and whether they should be open.
Many government officials would like more guidance on whether documents should be considered public or confidential, she said.
State and federal laws now designate some information as confidential because it deals with trade secrets or security, Best said. For example, terrorists might seek to get information on power plants, water systems or communications systems, she said.
State and federal laws also protect information held by government that deals with health records or other private information, Best said.
The attorney general's report also recommends that changes be made in state law to deal with fees charged for obtaining government records and to set up a process for resolving disputes on whether information should be made public.
The Open Government Task Force, which includes members from state and local government agencies and news organizations, will discuss rewriting the overall legal definition of public records. At its next meeting Sept. 26 in Sioux Falls, the group also will look at provisions for keeping confidential some information dealing with security or personal privacy.
The task force likely will address other issues, such as procedures for resolving disputes about whether records are open, at later meetings. Some of the recommendations will go to the 2008 South Dakota Legislature.
The panel's work will be based on a study of government records just completed by the attorney general's office.
Long said an official in Gov. Mike Rounds' administration told him earlier Wednesday that the administration also intends to write a bill based on the recently published study of government records.
"He said there was a bill being drafted over there to implement the recommendations in the report," Long said.
The task force will work to suggest its own version of an open records bill because it's too early to tell whether the governor's version will "come to fruition," Long said. "If we're all working toward the same goal, that would be a good thing."
Long's office worked for two years to determine what records are kept by state agencies and local governments in South Dakota and which of those records are now open. The Legislature provided some money to help complete the study, but lawmakers refused to create a special state commission to make recommendations based on the study.
The attorney general then decided to reactivate the Open Government Task Force, which he appointed several years ago to look at issues dealing with open meetings and records.
Current state law generally provides that government records are open if an agency is required by law to keep those records. Other parts of the law specifically designate some records as closed because they deal with criminal investigations, personal information on health and other subjects, and business secrets.
Dave Bordewyk, general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper Association, said he would like to see state law rewritten to presume all records are open unless the law specifically provides that they be closed.
Some representatives of state and local government agencies indicated they believe the current law is working pretty well.
But Tena Haraldson, bureau chief for The Associated Press in North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, said changes are needed because South Dakota is the only state in the nation without a constitutional provision or law stating that government will be open to the people.
"I think that's an embarrassment and a shame," Haraldson said.
Government exists for the benefit of the public, Haraldson said. "The public has the inherent right to know what's going on."
Assistant Attorney General Diane Best, who headed the study of government records, said the study made a lot of agencies re-examine what documents they manage and whether they should be open.
Many government officials would like more guidance on whether documents should be considered public or confidential, she said.
State and federal laws now designate some information as confidential because it deals with trade secrets or security, Best said. For example, terrorists might seek to get information on power plants, water systems or communications systems, she said.
State and federal laws also protect information held by government that deals with health records or other private information, Best said.
The attorney general's report also recommends that changes be made in state law to deal with fees charged for obtaining government records and to set up a process for resolving disputes on whether information should be made public.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
