Freedom of Information Day 2021 coincided with the last day of the Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly before the veto period commenced.

The irony is lost on no one who appreciates the words of the man we celebrate on Freedom of Information Day.

On March 16 we recognize the birthday of the philosophical "Founding Father" of freedom of information, James Madison. Madison famously wrote that "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance."

Obviously, Madison never met the sponsors of the 2021 amendments to Kentucky's open records law. These men equip themselves with ignorance rather than knowledge.

Mind you, these are not ignorant men. These are men who choose to insulate themselves from knowledge and truth.

Take, for example, the sponsor of HB 273, a bill that awaits the Governor's action. It will create a new exception prohibiting access to photos and videos that depict the death, killing, sexual assault, or rape of a person.

The sponsor of HB 273 clearly stated on at least four occasions that the exception only applies to court records. HB 273 contains no such limitation — the word "court" appears nowhere in the bill.

Whatever our individual opinions about the need for the exception, it soon became apparent that the sponsor knew very little about the basic mechanics of the open records law. On multiple occasions the sponsor could not answer the question whether HB 273 only applies to court records.

Asked in a House committee how his bill would affect open records requests, he could not answer. Asked in a Senate committee whether he did or did not state that his bill only applies to court records, he shrugged off the question. Asked on the House floor whether his bill applied to court records only, he answered that the bill allows many groups/individuals to obtain the photos/videos. A non-answer at best.

In other words, the sponsor could not answer the question about his bill's impact on the open records law. It was clear that he had no grasp of how the open records law works.

The same could be said of the sponsor of HB 312.

He embraced unsubstantiated claims that public agencies are inundated with "illegitimate" and unreasonably burdensome open records requests from non-resident requesters, that a residency requirement is a sure-fire corrective to that problem, and that existing law contains no solution to burdensome requests — where they are actually presented.

— Not to mention the sponsor's novel approach to the historic system of checks and balances that will thenceforward insulate the General Assembly's denial of open records requests from judicial review.

These lawmakers should first receive instruction on the law they seek to amend lest they continue to permit ignorance to govern knowledge at the expense of the *public's* right to know.