SB101 Open Records

Our readers at both ends of the political spectrum may be interested in SB 101, passed by the State Senate. Here is the Argus Leader description:

Government agencies should have to pay civil penalties if a judge finds they have acted unreasonably in denying people access to public records, a South Dakota Senate panel recommended today.

The Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to endorse a bill that would impose a civil penalty of $50 a day on state agencies, counties, cities, school districts and other government organizations that refuse to release records they know are open to the public. The bill next goes to the full Senate.

The measure originally would have imposed the penalty on individual government officials, but the committee agreed to change it so a judge could impose the penalty only on the public agency after finding that the agency had acted unreasonably and in bad faith to deny access to public records.

I do not usually endorse bills or candidates, but this seems like a very good idea.

Jeff Bloomberg, of the state Bureau of Personnel, said the bill would encourage public officials to comply with the open records law passed two years ago. Current law would allow an agency to ignore a state hearing officer's ruling to provide records, he said.

This would encourage public officials to comply with the open records law. A lot of us have complained for a long time that government records and information should be more readily accessible to the public and to the press. This bill will provide some remedy. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and is currently before the House Judiciary Committee.

Comments

[BillW]

KB Do you really think fining an organization $18,250 a year for failure to disclose information - with absolutely no personal repurcussions for the person working for the organization who decides to keep the info secret - will whip the bureaucrats into compliance? Exactly which agency will see that fine as worrisome? The "state agencies, counties, cities, school districts and other government organizations" spend more than that every year at Staples for new red tape dispensers.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: actually, I do. It's not only the money but the annoyance that is involved. If you ask me whether the bill's sanctions should be stronger, I would say yes. I would rather have this one than nothing.

[BillW]

Time will tell, I suppose ...and no doubt you are right in saying it is better than nothing. Still, I have a hard time seeing the threat of having to pay a fine of $50 as much of a motivator - especially since the $50 is other people's money.