Yet another update to a very recent post, this one concerning the importance of the independence of public servants charged with interpretation and enforcement of state public records laws.
https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/606836626529730/?d=n
Former Oregon Public Records Advocate Ginger McCall last night alerted the open records community to efforts underway by the League of Oregon Cities to undermine her former office.
She indicates that, having unsuccessfully presented its proposal for a public advocate stripped of his or her powers and independence to the Oregon Public Records Advisory Council, the League has turned its attention and efforts to the Oregon legislature.
With due respect to the Kentucky League of Cities, our antenna went up late last year when KLC included in its 2020 legislative agenda a number of proposals aimed at curtailing existing rights under Kentucky's open records law.
News from New Jersey later confirmed our suspicions.
https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/570795573467169/?d=n
The most threatening piece of the Kentucky League's legislative agenda is a proposal for a "residents only" provision that would restrict access to Kentucky's public records to Kentuckians.
We laid out the arguments against such a provision last year.
https://www.facebook.com/419650175248377/posts/561739291039464/?d=n
Responding to a series of tweets from McCall last night, Frank LoMonte — Director of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications' Brechner Center — astutely pointed out:
"It should be illegal, in every state, for a membership organization that accepts public money (i.e., dues) to lobby the legislature. Taxpayers unwittingly pay to subsidize 'leagues' all over the country that lobby against the public's interests."
2019's failed attempt at a "residents only" provision may have originated with the Kentucky League of Cities.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/19rs/HB387.html
The League has also, apparently, advanced the argument that Sen. Wil Schroder's well-intentioned if poorly worded amendment to the open records law in 2019 — mandating public agency acceptance of emailed open records requests — actually narrows the requester's rights and expands the agency's rights.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/partly-sunny-public-agencies-exploit-loop…
And the League returns in 2020 with a direct assault on the public's rights under existing open records law.
Why, as Frank LoMonte points out, are we subsidizing efforts to subvert our rights through public funding of dues paid by cities for membership in the League?
