As good public policy, government should be open and transparent. After all, it belongs to the people.   Transparency in state government is a priority issue at JLF (if you haven’t checked out our newest open-government project, please do: NCTransparency.com.)

The issue of what public records have to be provided and when has been a subject of conflict for years. Often citizens are denied access with very little recourse except filing expensive lawsuits. Some just can’t afford it so they give up the pursuit of their rights and others are sorry to have “won” when left with huge debt.  House Bill 1134 fixes that by allowing a successful plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney fees in a public records dispute.

This bill, the Open Government Act, is on the House floor today. Bill sponsor, Rep Deborah Ross (D-Wake), explains that public records are the property of the people. In addition to making it more likely that prevailing plaintiffs will recover their legal fees, part of the bill provides for education and mediation services in disputes. She argues the bill will make government more open and reduce court cases.
Rep Winkie Wilkins (D-Person), former newspaper executive, speaks in favor of the bill. In response to inquiries, he reports that  Dept of Justice does not expect additional cost to the state.

Rep Margaret Dickson, (D-Cumberland) former broadcast media executive, believes the public wants transparency and it is their responsibility to make sure it is open and accessible.

Rep Lucy Allen, former president of the League of Municipalities, has an amendment. She reminds members that 1,500 local government entities will be impacted. To prevent a backlog of Attorney General opinion requests, she adds to the list of things governmental bodies can rely on, an opinion by local government entity’s attorney.

Ross objects to the amendment because it is biased in favor of the local government and further the local government would pay for an opinion that they want, and that opinion would be considered attorney/client confidential and not considered a public record.

Rep Bill Owens (D-Pasqoutank) claims the amendment makes things fair for local government.  Rep Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) speaks against the amendment and says the bill, as it is, is a great bill.

Rep Rick Glazier, (D-Cumberland) says the amendment is bad policy dealing with good-faith provisions in the bill.

Rep Marvin Lucas (D-Cumberland), a former small town mayor, likes the amendment. Rep Nelson Dollar (R-Wake) says the amendment undercuts the bill. Rep Grier Martin (D-Wake) says the bill makes the law clear that records are public and disagrees with the amendment.

Rep Jeff Barnhart (R-Cabarrus), a former county commissioner, speaks in favor of the amendment and advocates giving local governments the policies they need to conduct their business. “Those attorneys go to the Institute of Justice and they know what they are doing.”

Rep Tim Moore (R-Cleveland), an attorney who has advised local governments, says it’s a bad amendment. Private citizen is going to great pains to make the government to do what they are supposed to do, he says.

Rep Verla Insko (D-Orange) asks if your lawyer relies on good faith and best efforts, then would attorney fees be assessed. Ross says no and that the amendment is a catfish amendment with the intent to kill the bill.

Rep Skip Stam (R-Wake) speaks in favor of the amendment.

Rep Dan Ingle (R-Alamance), a former law enforcement officer, says if it is detrimental to the victims, public records do not have to be made public using the names of rape victims as an example.

Rep Curtis Blackwood (R-Union) gives an example of city attorneys misusing their authority and opposes the amendment.

Rep Phil Haire (D-Jackson), a former city attorney, is in favor of the amendment.

Rep Robert Grady (R-Onslow), a former city councilman, recounts a story about an attorney who did not represent the public but instead the people who hired him and strongly opposes the amendment.

Rep Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson), a former town attorney for 7 years, says anyone who is hired by the town has an interest in keeping them happy and his contract renewed. ?You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.?

Rep Marilyn Avila (R-Wake) asks if the amendment means that in a dispute, would the attorney employed by the city be the one to say the city did nothing wrong and don’t have to pay attorney fees?  Ross says yes, that’s what the amendment does.
Rep Johnathan Rhyne (R-Lincoln), an attorney who represents a city of about 10,000, says he doesn’t believe that a lawyer’s integrity can be compromised, believes that local government’s attorneys will do the right thing and supports the amendment.

Rep John Blust (R-Guilford) says these are documents that belongs to the public and asks why should they have to jump through hoops to have to get it.
Ross speaks of small entities who have to go to great expense and puts a chilling effect on open government. Allen says this is a good bill and the amendment is a good-faith effort to make it better.
Vote on Allen’s amendment fails 39-76.
Debate continues on the bill.

Rep Leo Daughtry (R-Johnston) speaks against the bill saying judges can already award attorney fees if ?something terrible happens.? It puts tremendous pressure on small towns.

Rep Bill Owens (D-Pasquotank) says to vote on the bill and he hopes it will be ?fixed? in the Senate.

Vote is 109-6. It will have a third reading vote Monday night and then will go over to the Senate, where I hope they will leave it as it is.