SUMMER 2006 NEWSLETTER
GEORGIA F.O.I. ACCESS
GEORGIA FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION

F.O.I. leaders aren’t sure a Constitutional amendment for open government can advance in the General Assembly; the subject is missing so far in the state’s political races

By Tom Bennett

Lilburn, Ga., June 15, 2006 – Some Georgia freedom of information leaders aren’t sure the resolutions in the General Assembly calling for adding open government to the state Constitution have a chance of succeeding.

Meanwhile, this year’s races for the state constitutional offices would be a good time to air the subject. However, the candidates haven’t done so as the primary approaches, according to former Gov. Roy Barnes. He now is chair of Barnes Law Group in Marietta, and one of the state’s leading media lawyers.

"Yes, it is a tough sell," Barnes said. "If some of our candidates would make it an issue, it will be popular. Transparency is a good way to separate bland candidates."

Barnes proposed a Constitutional amendment at January’s Charles Weltner Freedom of Information banquet. It came while his and other resolutions for such an amendment were introduced by 21 Democrats. The resolutions were read and none achieved passage in either house.

In the wake of that activity on the freedom of information front, the members of the board of directors of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation were invited to answer the following question:

"What are the chances for passage of a Georgia constitutional amendment for open government? What should we be doing to make it happen?"

Seven responded. They are from the fields of education, media law and print journalism, and here are their comments:

JOSEPH R. BANKOFF
Partner, King & Spalding law firm in Atlanta

"We would be leading with our chin."

CAROLYN CARLSON
Assistant professor, Georgia State University

"The current House leadership has made it clear to us that they are not interested in expanding open records and I'm sure they would view this Constitutional amendment as an expansion. The Senate traditionally has been more open to open government legislation, so I think a two-thirds majority would be much more likely found in that chamber than in the lower chamber. The House has a history of more hostility to the idea, however, and given the current leadership, that's where the amendment would get hung up. Therefore, I think the amendment hasn't much chance under the current regime.

"For it to pass, it must have bipartisan support, with support particularly from the leadership in both houses. As for what we could do to make it happen, I think we have to get public support for the idea. I believe that's the only thing that will persuade the House leadership to ease up on their opposition. A public education campaign is difficult and expensive. We'd need public service announcements, a coordinated speakers bureau, etc. But I think it will take a groundswell of public sentiment in favor of the amendment – as evidenced, perhaps, by a public opinion poll that we could show to the House leadership -- to bring the House leadership on board."

F.T. ‘TREAD’ DAVIS
Of Counsel, McKenna Long & Aldridge law firm in Atlanta

"If properly presented, I think such an amendment would pass. The proposed amendment needs to be short and clear. I would not include the "private corporation" language, because I think it will be misunderstood and create a reason not to pass the amendment. I would get bi-partisan sponsorship. Tactically, there needs to be a public education program which coaxes out the latent love of openness in our General Assembly. Tactical issue also is whether to apply to all three branches."

DAVID HUDSON
Partner, Hull Towill Norman & Barrett law firm in Augusta

"The only reason a Constitutional amendment is being considered is because there is concern that the current General Assembly and governor are more likely to pass legislation restricting open government measures that currently exist. Heretofore we seem to have done pretty well without an amendment.

"But stating the problem demonstrates the difficulty of a solution through an amendment. If these folks are not as committed to open government as their predecessors, what makes it likely that they would agree to tie the legislature's hand with an amendment?

"I think it would be a tough sell. Although it would be hard for some

to argue against a Constitutional provision to enshrine what is already the law, e.g., see the 20-plus year-old statutory ban on same sex marriages yet the need for an amendment to say the same. Maybe we should have Constitutional amendments against murder, theft, battery, kidnapping and all other prohibited conduct."

HARRY MONTEVIDEO
Treasurer and publisher, Red and Black Publishing Co., Inc. of Athens, an independent newspaper serving the University of Georgia community.

"I tend to concur with most others, that the chances for getting this on the ballot to begin with are not very good. Once there, I'm also not convinced there would be enough public awareness or support for the amendment. I thought Carolyn Carlson's reply was pretty much on target.

"On the matter of public awareness, I'm afraid the media's general lack of aggressive reporting and service as a ‘watchdog’ for it's audience, hasn't helped in stirring public opinion on this matter. I'd hate to think we'd need another Yazoo Land Fraud to jolt politicians and public, but seems there needs to be a greater impetus for the amendment than it being the right thing to do (which of course it is).

"As far as what GFAF can/should do towards this effort, this should be discussed at the next board meeting with much input from Hollie Manheimer on what resources are available for such a campaign."

GERRY WEBER
Legal Director, ACLU of Georgia

"In my mind, pushing for a constitutional amendment when the legislative and executive branch have proven unreceptive to open government is a case of bad timing.

"A public education push for ‘no more exemptions’ that illustrates the crazy quilt of current exemptions might be a better focus of effort, and set the stage for change in public and political opinion. The atmosphere is just not ripe for positive change."

NEELY YOUNG
Publisher, Georgia Trend magazine

"I think the legislature would use this effort to restrict open records."

ROY BARNES’ PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT 2006 Weltner Freedom of Information Banquet "All records and meetings of any government, authority or private corporation performing a public purpose shall be open and available to the people. No exception to this requirement shall be allowed unless adopted by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly and approved by the governor."