After more than two years of exhaustive work, a state task force last year rewrote Utah laws dealing with public documents to make access easier. The finished product was adopted by the 1991 Legislature over the objection of some state agencies. But many of those same agencies are now trying to change the new law before it takes effect next April.
That effort should be rejected by state lawmakers when they meet in their regular session in January. Most of the arguments against the law by bureaucrats are the same ones heard and dismissed in the 1991 session.The Government Records Access and Management Act - better known as GRAMA - pulled all public access regulations into a single package, broadened their scope, eliminated inconsistencies and expanded the public's right to obtain what are essentially public records, with some reasonable exceptions.
Yet like bureaucrats everywhere, many state officials are claiming that government documents are really none of the public's business and that they don't want to be stuck with answering requests for documents. They don't say it that baldly, of course, but it amounts to the same thing.
Attorneys representing a number of agencies say they fear the law would force wholesale disclosure of now-secret records and that the new access requirements will be time-consuming and expensive.
Neither complaint is valid.
In the first place, GRAMA gives the public access only to documents that reasonably ought to be available. Records can be restricted if they contain personal information, medical records or confidential business data.
Fees can be charged and copies should be made available within 10 working days, unless exceptional circumstances are involved, like a large number of papers or lengthy research.
Other concerns involve penalties for refusing to release information; allowing people who have been turned down for copies of documents to appeal to the State Records Committee.
Because of these and other concerns, attorneys for state agencies have produced a number of suggested revisions. In the process, entire sections of the law have been rewritten.
Rep. Martin Stephens, R-Farr West, original sponsor of GRAMA, says the changes would reverse the entire philosophy of the records law. As GRAMA now stands, records are presumed open unless there are specific reasons to keep them closed. The suggested changes would turn that philosophy on its head and records would be presumed closed unless the agencies say they are open.
While the latter view is one commonly held by bureaucrats, this is not the way government should be run. The public has a right to have access to legitimate government documents - despite the displeasure it may cause agencies that would prefer for the public to leave them alone.
In any case, the fear that opening public records is going to cause some kind of public stampede into government agencies is vastly overblown.
Critics - and lawmakers - should leave GRAMA alone. At least give it a chance to work before trying to undo years of work by a conscientious and capable task force.