Bill would limit access
Posted 2-13-07

On the surface of it, Rep. Mark Hatfield's explanation for sponsoring legislation that would require written notice for public records sounds reasonable. If public officials are held criminally accountable for information requests, Hatfield argued, then the officials should have a detailed listing of what is sought. The Waycross Republican's appeal for further protection of public officials sounds high-minded, but it is wrong-headed and would create another unnecessary barrier between citizens and their government.

There have been only three or four criminal convictions of open records violations in the 30 years that the open records law has been on the books, according to Hollie Manheimer of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. That fact severely undercuts Hatfield's argument that public officials daily walk the razor's edge between doing their jobs and becoming mired in criminal investigations.

Further, the public is usually intimidated enough when it comes to requesting information. Why should citizens be forced to fill out detailed forms for records that, by law, are theirs to read anyway? Isn't there a reason why the word "public" precedes records in the information we are talking about?

Newspapers throughout the state have voiced their disapproval of House Bill 283. We should be against anything that impedes access to information, which this proposed legislation will. When public scrutiny of records is discouraged, the media can’t do its job - and the private citizen pays for it.