"HB 312 does not stifle transparency.""
This staggeringly stupid statement from Rep. Dan Fister (R-Versailles) in response to a recent op-ed by former state representative Joe Graviss casts considerable light on why we are rushing headlong toward darkness and legally sanctioned government secrecy in Kentucky.
Responding to Graviss in his own Herald-Leader op-ed, Fister writes:
"I want to preface my message by addressing the meritless claim that I did not read HB 312 before voting on it. This is simply not true. I take my role as your State Representative very seriously and I do my best to thoughtfully consider every issue before the General Assembly.
"HB 312 was created to restore the balance of power to the Legislative branch, just as the balance of power was restored in 1976 to the judicial branch when the Administrative Office of the Courts was created. This measure allows the Legislative Research Commission to have the final authority in determining open records requests to the legislature, just as the Administrative Office of the Courts decides open records requests to the judicial branch.
"HB 312 does not stifle transparency in the legislative process. In fact, the Kentucky Press Association, the most ardent advocate for the open records and meetings laws, never opposed the bill! Input from our constituents is a vital part of the legislative process, and we must do everything we can to continue to earn their trust and protect their personal information. What kind of information am I talking about? For example, over the past year, legislators and their staff have received thousands of emails from constituents struggling with unanswered unemployment claims. These emails and conversations not only contain very personal pleas for help, but personal information like a social security number or address. Under the provisions provided in HB 312, these conversations will continue to be confidential information."
Our reply to Fister's response: You may have read HB 312, but it is clear you did not understand HB 312.
Leaving aside the perverse fantasy that the legislative branch has suffered under a terrible imbalance of power — and somehow been subordinated to the executive and judicial branches over time — or that Kentucky Press Association neutrality is tantamount to a ringing endorsement — let's consider what HB 312 actually does that repudiates Fister's facile reasoning.
• HB 312 creates a residency requirement for use of the Kentucky Open Records Act to access Kentucky's public records.
• HB 312 extends the deadline for public agency responses to records requests from three to five business days—not altogether egregious but not exactly an open government-friendly measure.
• HB 312 establishes a "standardized" open records request form that is effectively mandatory (since "non-standardized" requests will require requesters to identify the statute under which they qualify as "residents" of Kentucky).
• HB 312 adds two new exceptions to the open records law. Although innocuous in themselves, when combined with the passage of HB 273 (authorizing nondisclosure of surveillance and bystander video in the custody of a public agency), they suggest the libertine delight lawmakers take in creating new restrictions on access to public records.
• HB 312 insulates from judicial review LRC denials of records requests for its own or the General Assembly's public records. After June 29, there will be no administrative or judicial recourse for aggrieved requesters denied access to the LRC's and the General Assembly's records.
Fister states that HB 312 was prompted by the desire to restore the balance of power between the three branches of government and to shield private constituent information.
Under HB 312, he maintains, lawmakers communications with constituents "will continue to be confidential information," acknowledging that most such communications — excluding, perhaps, bribes or death threats — already enjoy protected status under more than one of the existing exceptions to KORA.
Why, then, the need for additional measures aimed at lowering the cone of silence over the whole of lawmakers' affairs?
We know the answer, but perhaps Rep. Fister should go back and re-read HB 312.