Providing public records is not an extra responsibility

As football season begins, the City of Richland has decided it wants in on the game. Faced with requests for public records, its leaders are calling an end run.

Go to almost any government office in Mississippi and ask to see or photocopy a public document and the clerical staff will willingly respond.

That’s as it should be.

Most city clerks, chancery clerks, school secretaries and myriad others in government jobs have sufficient training and experience to know that almost all their work — land records, voter records, marriage records, budget and payroll information — is open to public inspection. Also in the public domain are computer records, audio and video recordings.

Any person has, as a basic right of citizenship, the right to “inspect” the records. “Any person” means “any person.” The identity of the seeker is not relevant, nor is the purpose for which the record is sought. The right to inspect is as old as the state of Mississippi and was consolidated 25 years ago into the Mississippi Open Records Act. That 1983 law set forth the general rule that every government record is a public record unless specifically exempted.

The rationale for openness is basic. The preservation of freedom depends on an informed electorate. A government’s records are the best and most reliable source of factual information. Having closed records not only breeds distrust, unless the public can see records of government activity, we don’t have a democracy.

Most city clerks, chancery clerks, school secretaries and myriad others in government jobs have sufficient training and experience to know that almost all their work — land records, voter records, marriage records, budget and payroll information — is open to public inspection

I know. It may seem a long way from Jeffersonian ideals expressed on yellowing documents enshrined in museums to, say, a list of food vendors kept in a filing cabinet in the corner of a school cafeteria manager’s office. But it’s not.

Just as refusing even one qualified voter at the polls would be unacceptable, any failure by a custodian of public information to share that information when asked is an unacceptable erosion of a basic right. Closed records put government in charge instead of people.

As mentioned, there are exceptions. The measure of most is that they work in the public’s interest. For instance, if a city gets an appraisal on property it might buy for a park, the appraisal is confidential. Why? Officials might get a better deal than the appraised price, saving taxpayers money. If the Department of Archives and History has a “find” in its files, that information may be withheld. Why? To prevent exploitation of a historic property.

There are dozens and dozens of such “pro-people” exemptions.

Others relate to personal privacy. A teacher’s pay record is public. The number of the bank account to which her compensation is deposited may be in the same file, but disclosing it would expose the teacher to crime. The law (and common sense) say such information, irrelevant to the public, may be “redacted” from the record, meaning erased or marked out before the record is disclosed.

Any time a news story appears about records being withheld, the simplest question to ask is whether the rationale given is “pro-government” or “pro-people.” A purely “pro-government” rationale for withholding information is — or should be — illegal.

In Richland, a Hinds County town near Jackson, the situation is a little different. The idea there seems to be to comply with the law, but to limit requests by imposing high fees.

The Open Records Act says a public office may recover its actual cost for duplicating a public record. That’s not unreasonable. For years, anyone visiting a circuit or chancery clerk’s office could expect to pay 50 cents a page for copier costs. There’s no right to unlimited free copies.

But the Richland Board of Aldermen has ratcheted things up. For instance, the Clarion-Ledger reports a price of $40 quoted in response to a request for two felony crime reports, probably a page or so each.

This, as Chancellor Willard McIlwain ruled in a case long ago, is “using the law to circumvent the law.” Setting high and arbitrary prices, which are not allowed by law, are an end run calculated to keep people from “bothering” government. Most telling was a quotation attributed to Richland City Clerk Melinda Quick. “It’s our time we’re stopping, and we get busy working on these requests, especially during political season.” That’s like a poll worker saying voters are a distraction to the business of election day.

Richland Mayor Mark Scarborough told The Clarion-Ledger that despite the aldermen’s vote, a unified fee system was still a work in progress.

As well it should be.

As most officials know, accountability to the public through records is part and parcel of public employment. It is not an extra duty. It is not a revenue opportunity. It is a basic duty. End runs should be left to football players.