A city council member in New Britain, Conn., is proposing a city law that would duplicate the state public records law and give reporters free photocopying of records up to $200. I hate to say it, but this is a bad idea. First, there’s no need to duplicate the state law. That could give some people the false impression that a local jurisdiction needs to have a public records law in order for people to have access to public records. State laws apply to local jurisdictions. I could see a city passing its own FOI law and then start adding in exemptions, whether they comply with state law or not. The other problem is giving journalists special privileges above citizens when it comes to accessing public records. While there is some precedent for that (FOIA copy fees waived for journalists, etc.), in my opinion newspapers should cough up the $10 in copy fees and call it good. Otherwise citizens may resent the special treatment and it could lead to officials wanting to create other different treatment for reporters, including restrictions. See story.

This story illustrates exactly why police reports need to be public. Police in Peoria, Ill., had a longstanding policy of hiding any crime reports involving juveniles, only providing them if someone knew about it already and asked for it specifically. As a result, attacks on teenage girls recently went unreported for weeks, angering parents because they were kept in the dark (it only came to light after a relative of the victim went to the media to complain about the secrecy). So now the police are changing their policy: crimes involving juveniles will be available and known to the media with names redacted. Hey, just like most other places in this country. No telling how many other police agencies hide away certain reports, available “only upon request.” Journalists should not allow that secrecy to happen, for the good of the children and community. See story.

The Associated Press gave notice that it will sue the West Virgina Supreme Court for failing to follow the state public records law. Journalists requested work e-mail and other records regarding the chief justice in their investigation of a potential conflict of interest between the justice and a coal company that had pending cases before the court. West Virginia state law covers the judicial system, unlike many states. This is another case of why all our officials, including the courts and our judges, need to be subject to the same public records laws and transparency as executive branch departments and local governments. Expect no less in your state (improve the law if you have to!). See story.

SPJ FOI Committee member Carolyn Carlson spoke at the SPJ Region 3 spring conference, urging members to never take “no” for an answer when requesting campus crime information. Carlson chairs the FOI Committee’s subcommittee on access to campus crime records. Read about it on the University of South Carolina’s student chapter blog.

A Vermilion County supervisor in Illinois is on the defensive for erasing tapes of public meetings. A lawsuit was filed against the county for allegedly violating the state freedom of information law by erasing audiotape of an annual assessors’ meeting. The supervisor says the lawsuit is frivolous and if they did violate the law they didn’t intend to. See story.

The Federation of American Scientists forced through a Freedom of Information Act request the U.S. Marine Corps to restore public access to unclassified documents on its Web site (see FAS info). Similar pressure by FAS pressured the Army to restore public records on its Web site. This group of scientists does an outstanding job of keeping information public for the good of information sharing and knowledge acquisition. Good job!

A startling bill approved by a Senate committee in Tennessee would not only make concealed-weapons permits secret (as in many other states), but would make it a felony to publish any information about someone who has a gun permit or is even applying for one. This is flabbergasting. It’s crucial this information be open and available for journalists and citizens to make sure criminals aren’t allowed to secretly pack guns, which is a common problem exposed by journalists who examine the permit records. To jail someone for publishing the information is just wrong, a form of prior restraint, and likely to be ruled unconstitutional. The House is awaiting an opinion from the state attorney general before considering action on a similar bill. As an NRA member (I support all of the amendments, not just the First), I’m just baffled at how this gun permit paranoia is getting out of control. I would think gun-rights proponents, including the NRA, which professes support for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, would want to limit government secrecy and power, not increase it.

Kudos to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for withdrawing its restrictive rules limiting access to online court records. The rules, which were slated to go into effect June 10, prohibited some information online that was available in paper format. The court decided to pull the new policies to “give the issue further study and consideration.” Good for them! See story.

It looks likely that South Carolina will make concealed weapons permits secret, according to an article in The Charlotte Observer. A half dozen state legislatures have considered making these records secret, and already more than 25 states keep the information hidden. This legislation is pushed by the NRA and gun owners who fear burglars will submit public records requests for the documents and then break into their homes to steal their guns. Maybe a lot of burglars are stupid, but if I were one I don’t think I would submit a public records request or break into a gun owner’s home. It’s too bad fear and paranoia continue to lead legislators to make records secret. A lot of great reporting (trends in gun ownership, government screwing up by allowing felons and wife beaters to have guns, etc.) has been based on these records that will no longer be able to be done for the public good.

FEMA is demanding The Advocate in Baton Rouge, La., shell out more than $200,000 for compiling and copying more than 2 million documents. After dragging its feet on the request, which was first submitted September 2006, the federal agency told the paper it couldn’t provide the information electronically, which would make everything a little easier. This is a huge problem at the state level as well – agencies choosing the format of the record in order to prevent access. Every state should have a law requiring an agency to provide the record in the format requested if it is available in that format.