Open government bill still on track, sponsor says
6:03 PM
By Whitney Woodward Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Monday, March 24, 2008
DES MOINES n A bill designed to give Iowans better access to public records and meetings is under close scrutiny by lawmakers, business and government groups in the Capitol, but the bill’s sponsor said today it’s still on track to becoming law.
The brainchild of a bipartisan team of lawmakers working for close to a year, the bill was shuffled to a new Senate committee last week to ensure it wouldn’t be quashed by an upcoming legislative deadline
The bill was slated for debate last week but was never called, as lawmakers’ attention was diverted to a contentious and unanticipated debate on a public union bill, said Sen. Mike Connolly, D-Dubuque.
The bill would create a council to evaluate potential violations of the state’s open records and meetings laws. The body would have investigative powers and could impose fines on violators.
The council’s members also would advise government employees on the nature of the state’s open records law, which sponsors said they hope means compliance will increase. However, the legislation also would allow governments to refuse to release “drafts” or preliminary copies of government work to the public n a plan many open government advocates oppose.
Education is critical to ensuring compliance, because many government officials simply don’t know the nuances of the state’s open records laws, said Keith Luchtel, a lobbyist for the Iowa Newspaper Association.
“We assume that most people want to obey the law, but they don’t know how,” Luchtel said.
Establishing such a council will compel better compliance, said Kathleen Richardson, the executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. She said her group has pushed for the creation of such a body for more than a decade.
Overburdened county attorneys and the Iowa attorney general’s office rarely have the time to study alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act, Richardson said. As a result, citizens’ other recourse is to file a lawsuit, which can cost them more than $50,000, she said.
“Overall, I think I’m very pleased with the fact the Legislature is taking seriously the access problems we’ve had in Iowa for a while,” Richardson said.
But a coalition of government groups n notably the Iowa State Association of Counties and the Iowa League of Cities n has declared their opposition to the bill. Some opponents have said the changes would unduly burden local governments, and that they fear that officials will be punished for unknowingly violating the law.
Several lawmakers have submitted amendments, while more than 50 registered lobbyists have signed up to monitor the bill.
“Everybody inside and outside of government ... everybody’s interested in this, how this unfolds,” Connolly said.
Democratic leaders have assured Connolly the measure will be advanced, he said.
“At the end of the day we’re going to have a good solid bill that’s going to make our sunshine laws among the best in the nation,” he said.
The brainchild of a bipartisan team of lawmakers working for close to a year, the bill was shuffled to a new Senate committee last week to ensure it wouldn’t be quashed by an upcoming legislative deadline
The bill was slated for debate last week but was never called, as lawmakers’ attention was diverted to a contentious and unanticipated debate on a public union bill, said Sen. Mike Connolly, D-Dubuque.
The bill would create a council to evaluate potential violations of the state’s open records and meetings laws. The body would have investigative powers and could impose fines on violators.
The council’s members also would advise government employees on the nature of the state’s open records law, which sponsors said they hope means compliance will increase. However, the legislation also would allow governments to refuse to release “drafts” or preliminary copies of government work to the public n a plan many open government advocates oppose.
Education is critical to ensuring compliance, because many government officials simply don’t know the nuances of the state’s open records laws, said Keith Luchtel, a lobbyist for the Iowa Newspaper Association.
“We assume that most people want to obey the law, but they don’t know how,” Luchtel said.
Establishing such a council will compel better compliance, said Kathleen Richardson, the executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. She said her group has pushed for the creation of such a body for more than a decade.
Overburdened county attorneys and the Iowa attorney general’s office rarely have the time to study alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act, Richardson said. As a result, citizens’ other recourse is to file a lawsuit, which can cost them more than $50,000, she said.
“Overall, I think I’m very pleased with the fact the Legislature is taking seriously the access problems we’ve had in Iowa for a while,” Richardson said.
But a coalition of government groups n notably the Iowa State Association of Counties and the Iowa League of Cities n has declared their opposition to the bill. Some opponents have said the changes would unduly burden local governments, and that they fear that officials will be punished for unknowingly violating the law.
Several lawmakers have submitted amendments, while more than 50 registered lobbyists have signed up to monitor the bill.
“Everybody inside and outside of government ... everybody’s interested in this, how this unfolds,” Connolly said.
Democratic leaders have assured Connolly the measure will be advanced, he said.
“At the end of the day we’re going to have a good solid bill that’s going to make our sunshine laws among the best in the nation,” he said.
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
