No small change

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Mar 14, 2007

There are a number of tactics local officials use to discourage journalists and the general public from requesting public documents they don't want us to see. This being Sunshine Week, a national media celebration of open government, we thought we'd focus on a few. There's the "playing-dumb ploy," in which they insist they don't know what you're talking about, the "please-put-your-request- in-writing ploy," in which they make you file a formal written request, under the Freedom of Information Act or Colorado Open Records Act, hoping this will intimidate some document-seekers, and there's the "run-the-clock-out ploy," which is designed to frustrate reporters working on deadline or people in a hurry.

And if all else fails, there's always the "nickel-and-dime-them- to-death ploy," in which they charge you, on a per-page basis, for copies. Charges can vary depending on the government you're dealing with, but they're almost always more than what a professional copy place would charge -- and more than what many citizens find reasonable or affordable, which can serve as a deterrent for some. Never mind that you the taxpayer are already paying for the paper, the ink, the copy machine and the person running it, and have also paid for generating or gathering whatever information the document contains. You also have to pay a premium for the benefit of reading it.

Nickel-and-diming people for open records has one respectable rationale -- it's meant to help defray the costs associated with responding to a special request. But there's also a niggling hope on the part of some government officials that these changes will discourage snoops, and we're sure it does so in many cases. Colorado law allows governments to charge up to $1.25 per page for copies, which undoubtedly is an obstacle to public access for many people.

Recognizing this is a barrier to open records and government accountability, state Sen. Andy McElhany has a bill before the Legislature that would cap the per-copy charge at 25 cents per page. The Senate last week overwhelmingly approved his Senate Bill 45. We hope it will have similarly smooth sailing through the House and across the governor's desk. It's a seemingly small change that could pay big dividends in terms of clearing away the barriers that exist to freedom of information.

Many county, city and other local officials may not like the measure; they seem to view such requests as a horrible chore or raid on privileged information, a drain on money and manpower that they should be able to recoup in full. But what they want or like is immaterial. Public records belong to the people, not the (frequently petty) bureaucrats who stand behind the counter or answer the phone. And they are gouging people if they charge more than a quarter a page.

Backers say the bill will save the press and the public nearly three-quarters of a million dollars each year. But that is of secondary concern. Its real value -- one that's hard to put a price tag on -- is in enhancing the public's sense that government is open, honest, accountable and, yes, their own.

"It's easy for government to forget that public records belong to the public," McElhany said after the bill's passage. "It may seem like a small matter -- until you actually need a document from City Hall and suffer sticker shock when a bureaucrat hands you the tab. A hefty price tag on a public record is another way of telling taxpayers to butt out."

We note that local state Sen. John Morse, a Democrat who cast the only vote against the bill when it was before the Senate Finance Committee, complaining about what a hassle it was for local governments to respond to public records requests, changed his mind and voted to support SB-45 when it came before the full Senate last week. Normally, such flip-flops can get a politician in hot water. But in this case, since Morse flopped the right way on the issue -- getting on the side of the people, rather than the bureaucrats -- we'll cut him some slack.

Animal crackers

Sure. And maybe they should be allowed to roam freely through the editorial offices of The Salt Lake Tribune. We're talking today about gray wolves, whose numbers are sharply rebounding across the northern Rockies due to federal reintroduction efforts. There's no question that the program has far surpassed goals set down a decade ago, when the animals were reintroduced into the Yellowstone ecosystem. Removing federal protection makes sense. At issue now is whether the states can be trusted to manage them properly. And on that question the fur is flying.

We believe states can responsibly manage the animals. But our colleagues at the editorial page of The Salt Lake Tribune not only doubt this, writing that the influence of ranchers and "misinformed hunting groups" in states will result in an open season, but they seem to believe the animals need not be managed at all.

"Wolves should be allowed to roam throughout their former range, instead of being 'managed' so that they occupy only very small habitats," the paper opines. "To remove them prematurely from federal protection, before states agree to protect them and not merely prosecute them to near-extinction again, would be foolish. Man can afford to move aside and allow wolves their natural place as top predator in what remains of the wild. To fail in that would be unfair to the wolves and destructive to the world we share with them."