I say the more open, the better off we all are

Today I've been working primarily on the legal guide, focusing on adding summations of open records/open meetings laws to states that we are currently missing. So far, I have done summations for Arizona (not posted) and am working on one for Tennessee.

This project has been especially interesting for me now, because before I only knew public records law based on what I had been told by colleagues or what I'd heard at journalism conferences. I had no idea how to look up a public records statute and even if I did, I'm not sure I would have felt comfortable figuring out what it said. Now I'm seeing these laws through the lens of a law student, looking at what the statute clearly leaves out and to which agencies its directives applies -- is the statutory remedy permissive (e.g., the court may award attorney's fees) or is it mandatory (e.g., the court shall award attorney's fees?) Does it provide a procedure for applying, and if so does it require a writing? Does it define what a writing can be? Does it provide a response time for open records requests, or does it only say the response time must be -- the lawyer's favorite -- "reasonable"?

Little details like these give a clearer picture of what is "open," and what is still hazy. You certainly get an interesting vibe from a state looking at what information it considers "public." For example, does the state have a broad list of exemptions that may or may not have clear public policy explanations (ahem, Tennessee), or does it list few exemptions, with a clear slant toward openness? Admittedly my bias from years working in journalism is to have an open government: the more access, the easier it is to find kickbacks. It's hard to fight that instinct after years of working to give the public more information about the workings of its government.

There are certainly well-educated, reasoned minds who would differ. In particular, I'm thinking of the author of Stealth Democracy, who hypothesizes that America would altogether be happier (and probably run smoother) with much less public access. The author points out that the court system, the branch of government we tend to see as more mystic and, ironically, the least open, as being the one with the highest ratings in public opinion polls.

I say ironically only because the court system and all its inner workings is probably more open than any other contemporary court, and it certainly was more open than any court system at the time of our nation's founding. Think back to the times of English courts which disallowed a defense for treason, of secret tribunals where the accused had no right to see the evidence against him, the same court system which disallowed anyone with an economic interest in the case to testify. Surely it seems like an improvement?

Congress, on the other hand, with such constant media attention, is seen as the least effective branch of government and the one with strongest negative responses in opinion polls. This negativity leads to frustration and indecisiveness amongst voters, with many voters feeling constantly disenchanted with the people whom they elected and becoming less involved in elections as a result. If we want democracy to keep running, we should scale back on public access instead of putting everything on the table.

The author makes several important points which would be impossible to summarize here (and admittedly you'd only be reading through my bias) so if you're interested in the effect of open records and public access to information, I'd recommend reading this book to see another viewpoint.

As for me, I'll stick with my strong-willed —perhaps even naive— belief that the more information a democratic public has, the better.