Fate of Public Records Bills Spoils Legislative Session for Newspapers

The bills faltered when House leadership failed to give the expected support to the measures and when a parade of small business representatives testified against the bills in the mistaken belief that the measures would harm rather than enhance access to information.

The combination was enough to cause the bills’ sponsor to withdraw the measures from the House Commerce and Government Matters Committee where they had been the subjects of a March 26 hearing.

The biggest success for MDDC lobbying efforts this year was its role in helping to defeat a bill that would have severely restricted telemarketing efforts, a practice that newspapers generally rely on for obtaining 60 percent of their new subscribers. Also on the plus side of the legislative ledger were the defeats of bills that would have restricted access to criminal record information and to certain information regarding students.

On the other side of the ledger, two bills were passed that cut back public notice advertising requirements in cash-strapped Baltimore City. (For a recap of the fate of legislation addressed by MDDC in this session, see the Legislative Checklist enclosed with this newsletter.)

The two FOI bills were developed by MDDC in the aftermath of last year’s public records audit that discovered that government agencies were denying access to public information in half of the cases tested. House of Delegates Speaker Casper Taylor and Senate President Mike Miller agreed to support legislation as long as it was aimed at clarifying the existing law to improve compliance rather than making substantive changes. Another condition was that it should be "consensus" legislation, i.e. worked out among the press, the representatives of the Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland Municipal League and the state attorney general’s office.

All these requirements were met. The first measure, HB 1461, consisted of several agreed-upon provisions aimed at clarifying the existing Public Information Act to bring about better compliance. The second measure, HJRes. 27, would have established a task force to study dispute resolution concerning access to public records.

But when the bills’ sponsor, Majority Leader John Hurson of Montgomery County, testified before the committee March 26 he said he really didn’t know anything about the bills, introduced them only at the request of the speaker and that he was surprised that no one from the speaker’s office was present to support the legislation.

When opponents were heard, more than a dozen representatives of investigative services, security firms, credit bureaus and other similar businesses echoed one of the opposition lobbyists, Bruce Bereano, and claimed the legislation would impede their access to court records, despite the language of the bills and the testimony to the contrary by the state attorney general’s office, other government representatives and MDDC. Bereano also complained to the committee that his clients hadn’t been consulted about the legislation.

Later that day, Del. Hurson withdrew the bills.

MDDC’s FOI Subcommittee Chair Tom Marquardt, executive editor of The Capital, said his group will meet on the 27th at Hunt Valley Inn to review developments and plan next steps.