|
SUNDAY'S EDITORIAL
By T&D Staff
Public access to government no
guarantee
THE ISSUE: Audit of the state’s Freedom
of Information Act
OUR OPINION: Compliance with
law crucial to public confidence in government
A
true story among old-timers at The Times and Democrat
revolves around a citizen’s request some years ago for
public records and the response she got: “You can’t see
those, only reporters can look at them.”
The attitude still abounds, as
documented by results of South Carolina’s second
official audit of government compliance with the state’s
Freedom of Information Act. Whether with the law’s
open-meetings provisions or guarantees of access to
public records, surveys by The Times and Democrat and
other South Carolina daily newspapers found there are
problems.
Around The T&D Region and
elsewhere, the stories were similar when journalists
went to law enforcement agencies seeking copies of
police incident reports. The idea was to determine the
variance in copying fees, but the exercise became more a
test of access. Requesting the reports as any citizen is
entitled by law to do, reporters got responses from
direct refusal to provide a report to being told reports
are only available to victims. Around the state, there
were examples of charges being as high as $5 a page for
a copy.
A second aspect of the audit surveyed
county council members and school trustees about open
meetings. They were asked questions about closed
meetings, including whether they had ever participated
in an executive session in which topics other than those
for which the session was called were discussed. Around
The T&D Region alone, nearly half of those surveyed
indicated they had.
South Carolina’s FOIA allows
for closed sessions for specific reasons such as
discussion of contractual negotiations, security
measures or matters pertaining to individual employees.
But sessions are to deal only with a specific matter and
no action can be taken.
Reality is that
government officials often hold closed sessions for
extended periods of time during which they acknowledge
discussion extends to other topics. And anyone having
seen a public body come out of closed session and vote
unanimously on a matter over which there had been
contention realizes a consensus was reached in closed
session.
That’s not the way it is supposed to
be.
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster told The
Associated Press for reports about the FOIA audit that
citizens need “to know the issues that are being handled
in executive session.” If officials break that trust,
“the public loses all confidence in the public
body.”
For their part, public officials often
contend the law is impractical. They make references to
closed sessions involving other discussions because one
matter leads to another and the talk can be informal.
Most insist they do not purposely break the
law.
Still, as McMaster notes, there is no
provision in the law for conversation and discussion
straying from the matter at hand. Like the law or not,
public officials should consider it an obligation to
hold their discussions in open session, even when such
discussion may prove awkward.
In Georgia,
legislators have decided to take further action to
ensure that closed sessions are not abused. Public
officials there must sign affidavits swearing they
didn’t break the law in closed-door sessions by taking
up undisclosed topics. In South Carolina, more than
two-thirds of the surveyed board and council members
said they would not object to signing that type of
statement.
While efforts in South Carolina have
centered on having tape recordings of executive sessions
that would only be available to a judge were there a
legal challenge, the Georgia approach may have more a
chance of becoming reality. Most elected officials — and
we have to believe that may include state lawmakers —
don’t like idea of tape recordings.
In the
meantime, public officials should not mistake concerns
by press and public about compliance with FOIA. Those
willing to serve in local government and work for the
taxpayer are appreciated for the service and sacrifice
they make. Yet these officials and public employees are
not to become bigger than the laws they pledge to uphold
— laws including the Freedom of Information Act designed
to ensure that people have access to their
government.
E-mail this
page
Print
version
Back to the top
|
