RALEIGH – There is nothing unreasonable about openness in government, though you might get that impression if you take at face value the proponents of legislature that would reclassify some public documents and information as inaccessible.
They claim the mantle of reason, arguing that there must be a balance between the value of openness and other values, such as protecting the private information of public employees or ensuring that governments can conduct its business without impediment. “People seem to view this as some people are in favor of openness and some people are in favor of secrecy, but that’s a false dichotomy,” Leslie Winner, vice president of the UNC system and a former state senator, told the News & Observer of Raleigh. Skepticism from media and public-interest organizations about the motivation behind the legislature has been “grossly overblown,” said bill sponsor Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat.
But the real false dichotomy, it seems to me, is to suggest that current laws governing public records and open meetings in North Carolina are tilted too far towards openness, while the proposed legislation provides needed balance. The state’s policies already attempt to balance conflicting interests. They allow exemptions in the public-records laws for personnel information, for example, and allow governments to go into executive session to discuss bids and land acquisitions.
Clodfelter may deny that groups representing government officials aren’t really in favor of secrecy instead of openness, but I must respectfully disagree. For example, one proposal is to shield draft documents from the public-records law. This may look defensible at first glance – the assumption being that what matter is what is finally generated and agreed to by public officials and those with whom they are dealing – but the proposal would in reality open up a gaping hole in the law. Often, some of the most important information one can clean from a public file is found in the drafts, which show how policy is made and who influences the final result.
I understand completely why some politicians, weary of having their decisions second-guessed by pesky citizens, would love to see such a change. But the effect could in no way be described as striking a reasonable balance.
Another bill would shield private information of public employees and donors to public institutions, such as universities, from being disclosed under the public-records law. Even in this harder case, policymakers should tread carefully. Those who make the decision to involve themselves in the public sector, either as employees or donors, should not be able to deny reporters and interested citizens the right to understand how and why.
That wouldn’t be reasonable, either.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.