It has been 35 years since the Oregon Legislature adopted the Public Records Law, and lawmakers have been nibbling at it every two years since. By now it might make sense to take a completely new look at the law and see how it serves the public and how it does not.

The law came about at the same time as the public meetings law. Both were prompted mainly by Watergate. They were intended to get government out of the shadows and into the sunshine where the public could more easily watch and take part.

In some ways the laws were counterproductive. Where Oregon reporters had little trouble looking up public papers before, we now had a law with exemptions against which each request had to be vetted. Where previously reporters were free to do what had to be done in reporting on meetings, closed and otherwise, we now had rules that sometimes delayed when the public got the news.

As for public records, even while the legislature piled on exemptions each time it met, technology also marched on and created complications not foreseen in 1973.

E-mail, for instance.

When the law was passed, public officials could call each other on the phone and say whatever they wanted. Now they often use e-mail, and because that is a form of writing, e-mail messages are records covered by the law. But you know about the proliferation of e-mail and how it piles up and never seems to go away.

As a result, governments are routinely faced with requests to produce e-mails under the Public Records Law, and those requests can be exhaustive: “Let’s see all the e-mails exchanged over the last five years by city council members that mention franchise fees or refer to such fees indirectly.”

In defense, many local governments have adopted policies to discourage such requests by charging enormous fees. The fees may be justified in fending off nuisance requests, but they can be a burden to someone with a legitimate need to know.

In recent years, the law has been applied to messages from private citizens to their representatives in the legislature. A couple of sessions ago, mid-valley Sen. Frank Morse was obliged to notify constituents of this lest they write to him with details of their private problems that they would rather not share with the world.

Openness in government is one thing, but if you’re a private citizen hoping for a law change because of a personal health issue, for instance, you don’t necessarily want everybody to know about it.

Lately the legislature has exempted the property tax records of certain public officials from disclosure. But what’s fair for some people should be fair for everybody.

In short, it may be useful after 35 years to review and rebalance the law.

DH Reader Comments

The comments below are from readers of democratherald.com and in no way represent the views of the Democrat Herald or Lee Enterprises.

derralhunt50 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:37 AM: " I personally don't want to waste my tax dollor on someone else's research. Fees should be charged to recover the cost of digging up the records and making copies available. As far as reporters are concerned, most work for newspapers, magazines, tv and radio stations. All these make money selling news and there fore they should not be excluded. That's my opinion. " Willpower wrote on Mar 16, 2008 4:44 PM: " A government of secrets is a secret government. A secret government is a private enterprise controlled by the inside few. This is the definition of a fascist state and certainly not a democracy. Lets help America become a democracy like we portray ourselves, not a "hipocracy" that the world sees us as. " Bill wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:59 AM: " willpower, we are a Republic, not a democracy. All governments, even those run by Democrats, have secrets. Hillary and Bill have tons of them. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:04 AM: " > >I personally don't want to waste my tax dollor on someone else's research. Fees should be >charged to recover the cost of digging up the records and making copies available > If someone makes a note and it is recorded anywhere, any time, I have a right to have a copy of that record. I should not be charged a nickel. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:05 PM: " > >willpower, we are a Republic, not a democracy. > More silliness. There are many forms of a democracy, including republics. In the truest sense of the word, there are countries that democracies. " Bill wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:05 PM: " Barefoot it silliness on your part not to realize the difference between a republic and a democracy. We have been drifting away from a republic and towards a democracy for years. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:04 PM: " > >In the truest sense of the word, there are countries that democracies. > In the truest sense of the word, there are no countries that are democracies. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:25 PM: " > >Barefoot it silliness on your part not to realize the difference between a republic and a >democracy. > Obviously, I know more than you. For one, I never suggested a republic could not be a democracy, you have. There are no pure democrat governments on this planet. People who are able to hold more than one definition in their head at one time understand that "democracy" can be used to refers to a government which derives its power from the consent of the majority (determined here in the US by elections, in presidential elections by the electoral college) and governs according to the will of that majority. " Bill wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:07 AM: " Quoting you directly, Barefoot: "More silliness. There are many forms of a democracy, including republics. In the truest sense of the word, there are countries that democracies." Your post above claims you never said republics were democracies, yet there it is for all to see in this thread. You claim I said it, but it was you. Are you delusional? You certainly do not know more than I do, make errors all the time and try to use bluster and name calling to put your betters on the defensive. You are just lying Barefoot, and that's all there is to it. You would be fortunate to hold one thought in your head for 5 minutes, so don't pretend that you are actually intelligent. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:52 PM: " > >Your post above claims you never said republics were democracies, yet there it is for all to >see in this thread. You claim I said it, but it was you. > What I said: >>Obviously, I know more than you. For one, I never suggested a republic could not be a >>democracy, you have. I never said a republic could not be a democracy. You really have to either slow down while you read, or stop making comments on my posts. I prefer the latter. Check again, I said: >>There are many forms of a democracy, including republics. There are MANY forms of a democracy. One form of a democracy is a republic. United States is a republic. It is also a democracy. There are no PURE democratic countries on the planet, at least that I am aware of. " Bill wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:29 PM: " Barefoot, good job of trying to wiggle out of one of your typical contradictions. A republic is similar to a democracy, but it is not one. Go back to civics class. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:56 AM: " > >A republic is similar to a democracy, but it is not one. Go back to civics class > Why not do the world a favor and look up the word democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Gosh, now that means two things to look up. " Bill wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:24 PM: " Gee, Barefoot, if you mean a democracy is where people elect their leaders directly or indirectly it would cover more than just a republic. But, a republic has some safeguards to prevent the many subverting the rights of the few which can happen in a pure democracy. That is the path we are headed down. You seem to be always caught up in definitions (and your interpretation of them) and minor points that mean almost nothing. When we decide to conduct opinion polls, which are much less scientifically done than they used to be, and make public policy based on them, we are headed down the wrong path. " Barefoot wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:15 PM: " > >Gee, Barefoot, if you mean a democracy > It has to do with "common usage", i.e., most people do understand when someone says the US is a democracy. Most people understand that there are more than one definition of a word, and because you think it's one definition it doesn't mean the rest of the English-speaking world has to ignore all the others just because you have chosen to do so. "

*Member ID: *Password: Remember login? (requires cookies)   You must be logged in to comment. It's free and quick!