Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/i-statute/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:02:37+00:00

Document:
A few of the administrative regulations most significant to news reporters have been addressed in this outline. No attempt has been made to deal with all the administrative regulations of the various state agencies (or likewise, with local government charters, ordinances and policies), but the reader should be aware that they exist and may be asserted as a basis for denying access to records. At the same time, it should not be assumed that a municipal code provision purporting or interpreted to restrict access to records should be given effect. See, e.g., Griswold v. Homer City Council , P.3d , 2018 WL 4375455, at *7 (Alaska, September 14, 2018) (noting that because the Public Records Act applies to municipalities, the municipal code “applies only to the extent it narrows the exceptions to disclosure and requires that more records be disclosed”). Similarly, an agency seeking not to disclose a record on the basis of an agency regulation requiring confidentiality might cite as authority AS 40.25.120(4), which provides that "records required to be kept confidential by a federal law or regulation or by a state law" are not subject to public inspection. But note that the statute does not make an exception for records required to be kept confidential by a "federal or state law or regulation." Only federal regulations, and not state regulations, form the basis for this exception. The legislature apparently intended to reserve to itself the power to make decisions about when documents should be exempt from public disclosure. By not allowing an exception to the public disclosure requirement based on state administrative regulations alone, the legislature refrained from giving administrative agencies carte blanche to keep documents that agency employees decided would be best kept confidential. Although the issue has not squarely been addressed by the Alaska Supreme Court, trial courts in cases brought by the Anchorage Daily News concerning access to public records have interpreted the statute this way, and refused to deny access to records on the basis of administrative regulations purporting to make them confidential.
Consistent with the state’s strong public policy in favor of open government, the Act provides at the outset that it “shall be broadly construed to allow the inspection of governmental records.” O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(a). Echoing prior court decisions, the Georgia legislature expressly found and declared in its 2012 revision to the statute “that the strong public policy of this state is in favor of open government; that open government is essential to a free, open, and democratic society; and that public access to public records should be encouraged to foster confidence in government and so that the public can evaluate the expenditure of public funds and the efficient and proper functioning of its institutions.” Id. Further, “there is a strong presumption that public records should be made available for public inspection without delay.” Id.
The basic purpose of the UIPA, Hawaii's revised open records law, which became effective July 1, 1989, is to afford public access to all government records unless access is restricted or closed by law. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-11(a) (1996). It seeks to "[e]nhance government accountability" and to "[m]ake government accountable to individuals in [its] collection, use, and dissemination of information [about] them." Id. §§ 92F-2(3), (4). The UIPA complements the requirements of the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act [HAPA], which also mandates that government agencies make information under their control available for public inspection. Id. § 91-2 (1996).
A significant constraint on the statutorily sanctioned philosophy of access comes from the Hawaii Constitution's explicit guarantees of privacy. Haw. Const. art. I, §§ 6, 7. The UIPA acknowledges that "[t]he policy of conducting government business as openly as possible must be tempered by a recognition of the right of the people to privacy . . . ." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-2 (referring to Haw. Const. art. I, §§ 6, 7). The OIP often cites the UIPA's provision providing an exception to the general rule of public access based on unwarranted invasion of privacy as the reason for denying or limiting access. While the UIPA's invasion of privacy exception applies only to natural persons, id. § 92F-14(a), it accords with the HAPA provisions mandating confidentiality of agency records about individuals and entities. Id. § 91-2(b) (1996). Under the UIPA, agencies receive the effective equivalent of "privacy" protection when disclosure falls within UIPA's exception based on frustration of legitimate government purpose. Id. § 92F-13(3).
The UIPA lists three other bases that might support a denial of access to government records, see id. § 92F-13, including the most frequently cited: specific statutes or court orders. Records Not Available to Public, OIP Openline (newsletter), July 1992, at 2; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(4) (Supp. 1999). The remaining two exceptions supporting denials of access primarily serve to protect government interests in undiscoverable materials associated with the prosecution or defense of judicial or quasi-judicial "action[s] to which the state or any county is or may be a party," Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(2); and "inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees . . . ," legislative investigative committees, and "personal files of members of the legislature," id. § 92F-13(5).
"The purpose of chapter 22 is to remedy unnecessary secrecy in conducting the public's business." US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. Office of Consumer Advocate, 498 N.W.2d 711, 713 (Iowa 1993). “The Act carries with it ‘a presumption of openness and disclosure.’” In re Langholz, 887 N.W.2d 770, 776 (Iowa 2016) (citing Iowa Film Prods. Servs. v. Iowa Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 818 N.W.2d 207, 217 (Iowa 2012) (citation omitted)). Rather, the purpose of the Act is to ensure transparency, “open the doors of government to public scrutiny,” and prevent the government from acting in secret. Iowa Film Prods. Servs., 818 N.W.2d at 217 (quoting Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs., 580 N.W.2d 773, 777 (Iowa 1998) (citation omitted)); Press-Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa, 817 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Iowa 2012).
The basic policy of Kentucky’s Open Records Act is that “free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions … provided by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others.” Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.871.
Article II, Section 9 has been implemented by statute: Mont. Code Ann. §2-6-1001 et. seq. §2-6-1002 defines a public record as “information” fixed in any medium and retrievable in usable form prepared, owned used or retained by any public agency relating to the transaction of official business.
Procedures are similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
Unless otherwise provided by law, all records of public or governmental bodies, boards, bureaus, commissions, or agencies of the state or any political subdivision of the state, or organizations or agencies supported in whole or in part by public funds, or expending public funds, shall be public records, open and accessible for inspection during reasonable office hours.
North Dakota Constitution, Article XI, Section 6.
Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records, open and accessible for inspection during reasonable office hours.
The North Dakota Supreme Court has concluded, “Thus, for an exception to the open-records law to exist under our constitutional and statutory provisions, it must be specific, i.e., the Legislature must directly address the status of the record in question, for a specific exception, by the plain terms of those provisions, may not be implied.” Hovet v. Hebron Pub. Sch. Dist., 419 N.W.2d 189 (N.D. 1988).
Although the state constitution and the statute are clear that unless an express exception applies, public records are open records, there are nonetheless specific statutes declaring that certain records are open records. For example, the statutes address the records of the State Highway Department (N.D.C.C. § 24-02-11(1)), the State Engineer (N.D.C.C. § 61-03-06), the Water Conservation Commission (N.D.C.C. § 61-02-11), school districts (N.D.C.C. § 15.1-07-25(1)), and irrigation district boards of directors (N.D.C.C. § 61-06-21.1). Additionally, city real property assessment rolls (N.D.C.C. § 40-19-03) and master lists of potential jurors (N.D.C.C. § 27-09.1-05(3)) are listed as open records.
all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings, or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental entity.
T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(1)(A)(i). See also T.C.A. § 10-7-403 (defining "Public records within the county"). The determination of whether a document has been received "in connection with the transaction of official business" requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances. Griffin v. City of Knoxville, 821 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tenn. 1991) (suicide notes taken into police custody are public records). Tennessee courts have had occasion to determine that certain records claimed to be exempt were in fact intended to be open: applications of those seeking the position of school superintendent, Board of Education of Memphis City Schools v. Memphis Publishing Co., 585 S.W.2d 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979); payroll records of a public hospital, Cleveland Newspapers Inc. v. Bradley County Memorial Hospital Board of Directors, 621 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); and closed investigative files of a police department, Memphis Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1986). Forty eight categories of exceptions to the mandate of openness are contained in the Act itself under the rubric of "confidential records." T.C.A. § 10-7-504. The legislature has enacted numerous other statutes providing that certain records be deemed confidential or closed.
A 1988 survey by a special committee of the Tennessee General Assembly found a total of 89 exemptions either limiting or barring public access to various public records. Since that time, the General Assembly has frequently enacted additional exemptions. The attached Appendix lists 365 exemptions, but a list of exemptions the OORC released on January 30, 3018 finds 538 statutory exemptions with only two scheduled to sunset, which means the General Assembly has been passing exemptions at the rate of 15.5 per year since 1988. The OORC list was prepared for the General Assembly with the understanding that it might review the list to determine if more exception should be eliminated. The OORC list may be found at http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/openrecords/. The difference between this list and the attached Appendix maybe partly one of interpretation.
“Officers of government are trustees and servants of the people and it is in the public interest to enable any person to review and criticize their decisions even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment. All people, however, have a right to privacy in their personal and economic pursuits, which ought to be protected unless specific information is needed to review the action of a governmental officer. Consistent with these principles, the general assembly hereby declares that certain public records shall be made available to any person . . . . To that end, the provisions of this subchapter shall be liberally construed. . . .” 1 V.S.A. § 315.
Note: Pursuant to RCW 42.56.570(2), (3), the Washington Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has prepared a set of model rules regarding the Public Records Act. See WAC Ch. 44-14. Each state and local agency is urged to adopt these rules to provide greater clarify and uniformity in terms of how public records requests are handled. These model rules indirectly provide a good overview or guide regarding interpretation of the Public Records Act.
The Freedom of Information Act's declaration of policy, which is quoted in the Foreword, is the only indication of the legislative intent underlying the statute. There is no recorded legislative history relating to either the statute's original enactment in 1977 or its subsequent amendments. However, the state Supreme Court of Appeals has quoted the FOIA policy declaration repeatedly in its opinions. See e.g., Daily Gazette v. W. Va. Dev. Office, 198 W. Va. 563, 482 S.E.2d 180 (1996); Ogden Newspapers v. City of Charleston, 192 W. Va. 648, 453 S.E.2d 631 (1994). West Virginia's Supreme Court has mandated "the fullest responsible disclosure" of information concerning government. Hechler v. Casey, 175 W. Va. at 445, 333 S.E.2d at 808.
The remedial purpose of the Public Records Act is "to permit access to public records unless disclosure would inflict irreparable harm contrary to protected rights." Id.

References: v. 
 § 50
 § 92
 § 91
 § 92
 § 92
 § 91
 § 92
 § 92
 § 92
 § 92
 § 92
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 v. 
 § 24
 § 61
 § 61
 § 15
 § 61
 § 40
 § 27
 § 10
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 § 315
 v. 
 v. 
 v.