SPRING 2007 NEWSLETTER
GEORGIA FOI ACCESS
GEORGIA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION

AROUND THE SOUTH

North Carolina coalition finds a home

By Tom Bennett

Elon, N.C., March 15, 2007 – As part of the latest start-up of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, some students in the Elon University School of Communications fanned out across campus with a camera and microphone and asked fellow students, "What are sunshine laws?" Here are some of the answers they received:

•  "Are they laws that are implemented during the summer when the sun shines?"
•  "The laws of Florida?"
•  "The laws of Arizona?"
•  "Laws having to do with daylight savings time?" and
•  "Are they laws requiring you to wear protective glasses against the bright sunlight?"

Paul Parsons is a former reporter for United Press International and also a state broadcast editor for Associated Press in Arkansas. He is professor and dean of the Elon School of Communications. An uplink truck is parked just off the back door, students with makeup are skittering up and down the halls, and if anyone even appears to be saying something important, one student sticks a microphone in that person’s face and another sets up a video camera atop a tripod. FOI in the South has gone Hollywood.

"When the call went out for someone to be the host for this foundation, we immediately opened our doors," Parsons said. "Why, right here in our local area our newspaper had a story about a memo that the county manager wrote in which he told all the employees, ‘Don’t honor a public-records request unless it’s in writing, and only if I give my express permission.’"

Cathy Packer is associate professor of journalism and mass communications at the nearby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She also is co-editor with Hugh Stevens and C. Amanda Martin of the "North Carolina Media Law Handbook." There was a workshop here at Elon today about the landmark open-meetings lawsuit, Lothrop v. Chatham County Board of Elections. Gretchen Lothrop, a citizen activist, artist and sculptor, at last whittled down the board of elections’ reluctance to have open meetings about its move to touch-screen voting machines. Dr. Packer said: "I have a media-law exam in which I hand out a description of a North Carolina agency that has a meeting and does, or does not do, certain things required under the North Carolina open meetings law. I ask the students to name all the ways that the agency has broken the law. Well, Lothrop v. Chatham County Board of Elections basically lives out my exam question."

The current managers of the new coalition missed an opportunity to carefully assess freedom of information in the 11th most populous state. They had only 37 responses to an open-government audit, according to Beth Grace, executive director of the North Carolina Press Association and also the secretary of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition. There were "60 or 70" agencies surveyed in "about 50 counties," Grace said. (The state has 100 counties.) "We had to throw out two records we were asking for when we found out North Carolina counties don’t keep them... We didn’t do any number-crunching. We rushed the audit to get it done by Sunshine Week."

The survey depended upon volunteers, said Steve Riley, deputy managing editor of the News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh. "Using the volunteers at times was frustrating," according to Riley. "For example, one made one stab at getting a record, then left on vacation. I still haven’t heard from our volunteer in Johnson County."

According to an article by Margaret Lillard of the Associated Press, there were surveys in 41 North Carolina counties made during Feb. 19-23. The surveyors asked for minutes of closed meetings; legal bills from outside counsel; and e-mail correspondence of members of town councils and school boards. Although audits since 1997 from the Dakotas to Maine to Florida have produced actual percentages of compliance, Beth Grace didn’t report any, and Margaret Lillard’s AP story only states that "a number" of the agencies refused records.

Melanie Sill, then assistant managing editor for projects for the News & Observer (and now its executive editor) said at the 1996 national SPJ Project Sunshine conference that North Carolina soon would be following other states and starting an open government coalition. Seven years passed. The coalition was incorporated in November 2003, according to the North Carolina Secretary of State’s Office. There was a period of time in which a Charlotte newsman managed the coalition, and some links went on its website. It got a third sendoff here today as Elon opened its doors.

Tom Bennett writes about access issues for Georgia FOI Access.

New court access rules are "a big step forward" in Arkansas

Little Rock, Feb. 27, 2007 -- Arkansas's Supreme Court adopted an administrative order on Thursday that defines which court records can be excluded from public access when requested under the state's Freedom of Information Act.

The order is the product of the Task Force on Public Access and Privacy, which was created by the state Supreme Court in 2004.  The task force aimed to produce an order that balances the public's right to information with an individual's right to privacy and protection from identity fraud.

The court published an initial order in June and then modified the document to incorporate public comments.  The final order says that any individual can access court records under Arkansas's Freedom of Information Act, but lists exceptions to disclosure that include information barred from public access under federal or state law, or under a court order or ruling.

Also excluded from public access are Social Security numbers, account numbers and Personal Identification Numbers (PINs), information from sealed or expunged cases, litigants' addresses and phone numbers, and notes, communications or deliberative materials that relate to the decisions of court officials.

If any of the exceptions are mentioned in open court and included in a court transcript, however, they cannot be excluded from public access.  In addition, individuals may gain access to exempted information if they can prove in writing that "the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm in disclosure," according to the order.

All documents containing restricted information will be released after that information is redacted.  The order also instructs Arkansas courts to make listings of case filings, dockets of court proceedings, and any judgments, orders, or decrees accessible to the public online, unless the information is subject to an exemption.

The order takes effect July 1, but the requirements for redaction do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2009, to give court clerks and attorneys time to "familiarize themselves with the process and prepare for implementation," the court states.

Richard Peltz, a law professor at the University of Arkansas, said the order is "very friendly to public access.  Its adoption is wonderful news and a big step forward for Arkansas," Peltz said.

(In Re: Adoption of Administrative Order Number 19 – Access to Court Records) -- MA

Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press