MDDC's Public Records Bill Moving in the Legislature

Legislation that would improve compliance with Maryland's Public Information Act by clarifying several of the law's provisions passed the House of Delegates and was awaiting Senate Action early this month as the 2002 legislative session moved toward its April 8 adjournment. 

Other legislative activity regarding bills of interest to newspapers include progress on a compromise anti-terrorist measure limiting access to certain, clearly specified information, defeat of a bill that would have severely limited newspapers’ use of telemarketing to build circulation, and defeat of a measure that would have closed access to autopsy reports.

On public notice advertising, results have been more mixed. One measure that would have removed the requirement that public notices of abandoned property be advertised in newspapers was defeated, but two other bills that could reduce public notice advertising in newspapers for certain contracts were continuing to move through the legislature. (See Legislative Checklist enclosed with this newsletter.)

The PIA bill, HB 1024, was developed initially last year by the MDDC Press Association, working with state, county and local government representatives. It was introduced this year by House Speaker Casper Taylor and was amended in the House Commerce and Government Matters Committee before reaching the House floor, where it passed 115 to 22. It is now before the Senate Committee on Education, Health and Environmental Affairs.

In a 95-minute hearing before the House committee March 13, a newspaper panel composed of Carol Melamed of The Washington Post, Tom Marquardt of The Capital and Jim Asher of The Baltimore Sun testified for the bill. State Attorney General Joseph Curran also testified in person for the measure, along with representatives of county and local government officials and Speaker Taylor.

Opposition was heard from several lobbyists and members of commercial interests who maintained, as they did last year, that the bill would hurt rather than aid access to records. When that opposition was heard last year late in the session it was enough to cause the bill to be withdrawn. This year, proponents, who testify before opponents at legislative hearings, were able to address and counter the claims of the opposition.

The House committee subsequently proposed amendments that made the bill acceptable to all concerned. "The bill, as amended, will have a very positive impact on public access to government records by clarifying the law and improving access procedures," said Melamed, chair of the MDDC Government Affairs Committee.

Among other things, the bill:

• requires records custodians to consider whether to designate types of records that are to be made available immediately upon request, and maintain a current list of those types of records

• provides for circumstances where a written request for records is not required

• provides for prompt notification to an applicant when a custodian determines a requested record does not exist

• clarifies that the identity or affiliation of the applicant is not required for access to the record except in certain, limited circumstances

• defines "reasonable fee" for producing records as "actual cost" incurred by the government unit holding the record.

• removes the punitive damages penalty in the law but retains attorney fees, actual damages and other remedies.

Concerning the anti-terrorist or public safety legislation (SB 240 & HB 297), MDDC representatives worked closely with the governor’s office and other government representatives to narrow the scope of any restrictions on information access sought by the government in response to the terrorist attacks of last September 11.

In its original version, the legislation would have simply given custodians of public records the authority to deny access to any records that they determined "would constitute a risk to the public or to public safety."

The amended bills, which have been passed by both chambers but await final action, limit the restrictions to specific information such as schematic drawings and other plans of defined transportation facilities and certain buildings, plans for responses to emergencies, information identifying pharmaceutical or medical storage facilities, and other specific records. And those documents may be closed only to the extent that inspection would jeopardize the security of any state owned or operated structure, facilitate the planning of a terrorist attack or endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

The bill also contains a review provision requiring the state attorney general to review these changes in five years and report on their continued necessity or recommend modifications.