Statement on GRAMA and HB477 Representative Curt Webb sent to us this morning:
HB477 Issues
March 24, 2011
I strongly support the public right to information access. I support the existing public records act and recognize that it needs to be updated to address current communications technology, and an increasing demand that information be made available.
I voted for HB477. I do not consider it an unreasonable attempt to address the issues. I do not favor repeal without addressing those issues. I acknowledge that the atmosphere surrounding the bill has become toxic.
Let me address the bill this way:
Current law:
There is GRAMA legislation on the books now. Has been since 1992. It is viewed as a model of open records law. It is a reasonable balance between the public’s right to know all things having to do with policy (as should be the case) and the right to privacy for personal non-policy issues by elected officials. Both are protected under current law. It should also be noted that current law does not consider conversations, either in person or on the phone, as a public record.
What prompted the Changes?
Currently all correspondence having to do with policy, whether on an official device or on our own personal devices or computers, is ”gramable”. Personal and policy correspondence is intermingled on both categories of devices. As a result GRAMA requests require a review and a sifting procedure by legal staff. No amount of automation can do the sifting. An arbitrary requirement that all public policy and only public policy, be done on public devices is an open door to mischief elsewhere.
Electronics have given us so many more ways of communicating that weren’t foreseen in 1992, so there is now much more retrievable correspondence to sift through.
The Problem
1) GRAMA requests come from the public, the media, and from special interest groups. The number, the scope, and the complexity of those requests has increased dramatically.
2) Increasing technology has created even more records.
3) But cutbacks have decreased the number of staff and legal assistance available to sift and comply with requests.
The Questions
1) Should the public have access to records? It should. Non-transparent government is not good government.
2) What is a record? Policy related correspondence.
3) What is private? Non-policy personal correspondence.
4) If conversation is now exempt, should modern equivalents also be exempt? Text and instant messaging, as well as video calls are “contemporaneous conversation” in HB477. Should it be?
5) If personal and policy correspondence continue to be intermingled, and GRAMA requests can reach into our personal computers as well, who pays the cost of review and compliance?
6) If the requestor pays, what is a fair fee? Or, if tax dollars are to cover the cost should there be restrictions on the scope of any request?
7) Alternatively, we could choose to define public officials as without privacy. Should we? It would save the hassle of sifting and review?
How does HB477 address these issues?
1) It preserves almost all of current law and maintains the distinction between public and private correspondence. The need to sift does not go away.
2) Because the cost of production is significant and government resources are limited, the bill places the burden to pay on the requestor rather than on the taxpayer.
3) It considers all that was a record under current law to continue as such, including email.
4) It protects the new “contemporaneous conversation” tools above mentioned as equivalent to the conversation and phone call protection that exists in the current GRAMA code. This seems like a logical extension of conversation, but is perhaps the bill’s most controversial provision, and most likely to be changed by the working group.
Summary
Should we have even considered the update to GRAMA? I believe it was time to do so.
Did we make the right choices? I believe the legislature’s attempt was reasonable.
Should HB477 be abandoned? Not without addressing the needs..
Are changes warranted? Seldom do we pass anything that doesn’t need a second look, even major changes if they make sense.
I supported the Governor’s request for an extension and a working group. I do not support a repeal if there is no assurance of addressing today’s realities.
As for public opinion: The media has always had the luxury of framing any issue. That is a fact of life and a guaranteed freedom. Our local media has shown remarkable objectivity on HB477. In other markets some media outlets have unleashed a firestorm, and I do not fault any of my colleagues for their votes.
I feel very fortunate to represent House District 5. My constituents are reasonable, intelligent, and politically astute. I have talked with many about their concerns. They do not all agree with what we did, I would not expect them to. Some would support changes, some support repeal, but almost without exception they understand why I voted the way I did.
I am not comfortable with “repeal” only. It leaves too much unanswered. Neither am I comfortable with promises alone to work on the issues. Much has transpired to make me skeptical.
Representative R. Curt Webb
Utah House District 5