Published: January 12, 2008 08:17 pm            

TRIBUNE-STAR EDITORIAL: Access laws need more teeth, but in what form?

Legislature would be wise to take its time

The Indiana Coalition for Open Government did the state a big favor recently when it released results of a survey showing that Hoosiers who have used the services of Indiana’s public access counselor overwhelmingly believe there should be sharper teeth in public access laws.

What’s more, the survey suggests it is the access counselor who needs the power to enforce those laws.

The results of the survey sent a message to state lawmakers that citizens believe access laws are only as effective as the enforcement power behind them.

Indiana’s access laws — primarily made up of statutes governing open records and open meetings — are effective in protecting the principle of open government. The major flaw is that people who feel their government has violated those laws have little recourse other than to take the matter to court and try to recover their attorney fees at a later time.

The creation of the public access counselor position helped the cause considerably, giving Hoosiers and government officials a way to learn more about access laws and to get advisory opinions about specific access issues. The only real force behind those opinions, however, is in the court of public opinion. The access counselor has no enforcement power.

Some are suggesting changes in the law that would give the access counselor more power. Sen. Frank Mrvan, D-Hammond, has introduced a bill in this legislative session to give the access counselor the ability to enforce laws by penalizing those who violate them.

The time has come for the Legislature to create a system of civil, or perhaps even criminal, penalties to enforce access laws. But we’re not convinced the access counselor’s office is where that power should reside.

Neither is Steve Key, general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association. Key, in a column in HSPA’s bi-weekly publication for association members, explained that giving the access counselor enforcement powers would fundamentally change the relationship that office now has with state and local government agencies.

The access counselor’s role has been as an advisor and a mediator of disputes. More often than not, the counselor has been able to resolve issues that arise. Altering that function would require a major increase in resources and a change in the way the office is structured within the law.

There are better ways to address the issue of enforcement, and it may be best for the Legislature to defer this issue to another year, especially since lawmakers are under tremendous pressure in this short session to deal with major concerns over property taxes and government reform.

Greater enforcement is needed, and ICOG’s survey shows that citizens would favor such a change in the law. But let’s take the time and careful study to find the right solution.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.