An effort afoot to strengthen the state’s 45-year-old Access to Public Records Act has rekindled public debate over what the citizenry has a “right to know” regarding how it is governed.
The spotlight has been put on the law recently in the wake of ethics complaints against two McKee administration officials and the fallout over the failure of the Washington Bridge, pushing what has historically been a specialized debate among activities, journalists and state officials to the center stage.
The Access to Public Records Act – or APRA – was intended to be a working document when it was established in 1979, according to open-government advocates. But they say it has gotten a little stale.
Legislation filed by Rep. Patricia A. Serpa, D-West Warwick, and Sen. Louis P. DiPalma, D-Middletown, is the latest attempt to change the law. Among its several dozen provisions is a reduction of the numerous exemptions from disclosure enjoyed by state and municipal agencies, lowering costs to the public for APRA requests, increasing fines levied for violations and requiring a more detailed accounting of what was withheld from public view and why.
The legislation was met with a bevy of opposition from Gov. Daniel J. McKee’s department chiefs, arguing that while they support transparency, many of the proposals would be too burdensome, costly or inconsistent with federal law.
A provision to require that all documents to be “considered or submitted at a public meeting of a public body” be posted publicly beforehand received pushback from Commerce Secretary Elizabeth M. Tanner.
She said the R.I. Commerce Corp. frequently receives confidential business information from companies looking to use an economic development program. While R.I. Commerce officials use this information to make decisions, “we must be able to maintain a level of confidentiality throughout the deliberative process,” she said.
Tanner said the change could “disadvantage the businesses … by disclosing confidential business information” or could discourage businesses from applying in the first place.
But Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, says all of the proposed changes are “reasonable measures.
“I think a lot of the concern over what is being proposed is unfounded,” he said.
Public records laws in other states recognize there is a balance between transparency and the privacy of some information, Silverman says. “These changes are warranted,” he said. “It’s been a long time coming.”
John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, has testified in support of APRA changes in the past with no success, but he remains optimistic.
“We’re hopeful it will pass this session but realistic that with such an ambitious bill, we will need to make some compromises along the way,” he said.
While there is room for debate over some of the proposals being made, others make Rhode Island an outlier.
Take the fees charged for requests – 15 cents per page – and the two hours an agency is supposed to dedicate to retrieval free of charge. “In some states, the public records law forbids the government from charging at all for a search, no matter how long it takes,” Marion said.
During the first public hearing before the House State Government and Elections Committee, Serpa said she believed some of the arguments being put forth against the bill were “manufactured.” A spokesperson for House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said he is “keeping an open mind” and awaiting recommendations from the committee chair.
The Senate version was scheduled to be discussed on March 28.
