10/26/2010: Back in April UO General Counsel Melinda Grier was fired for her office’s “deficient legal representation” involving, among other things, failure to deal properly with public records requests. Her mistakes cost UO millions. The Attorney General’s investigation alone cost $44,000.
Three weeks ago Oregon AG John Kroger and his Transparency Czar Michael Kron released this report on the sad state of Oregon’s public records laws. Most independent rankings give Oregon an F on transparency. Kroger pledged to do something about it, proposing new law and, more importantly, immediately implementing new pro-transparency interpretations of existing law, in a new on-line Public Records and Meetings Manual. This manual is an official AG Opinion. I’m no lawyer, but apparently that is supposed to mean something. Kroger says this regarding delays:
The public is entitled to inspect non-exempt records as promptly as a public body reasonably can make them available. How quickly a public body reasonably can make non-exempt records available will depend on factors like the specificity of the request, the volume of records requested, the staff available to respond to the records request, and the difficulty of determining whether any of the records are exempt from disclosure. In the usual case, we think that it should be possible to make requested records available within ten working days. We recognize that in some case more time – even significantly more time – may be required.
Kroger has also strengthened the public interest exemption for fees for access to public records:
Under ORS 192.440(5), a public body may reduce or waive fees if it determines that doing so is in “the public interest because making the record available primarily benefits the general public.” The Oregon Court of Appeals construed the public interest requirement for granting a fee waiver or reduction in a 2005 decision.[60] It concluded that “[a] matter or action is commonly understood to be ‘in the public interest’ when it affects the community or society as a whole, in contrast to a concern or interest of a private individual or entity.”[61] In addition, it stated that “a matter or action ‘primarily benefits the public,’ * * * when its most important or significant utility or advantage accrues to the public.”[62] Therefore, the public interest test is satisfied “when the furnishing of the record has utility – indeed, its greatest utility – to the community or society as a whole.”[63]
In theory these new rules will make it harder for UO to use delay and high fees to hide public records from the public. Of course, they should have learned a lesson about that back in April – a $3.1 million lesson. In practice? We’ll see.
Be First to Comment