Open government reform faces uncertain political future

A chorus of open government advocates have called for Iowa policymakers to initiate a public information oversight body. But despite perennial efforts by the legislature, those calls for reform have largely gone unanswered.

Now, likely Republican gains in the statehouse — along with little push for overhaul from this November’s gubernatorial contenders — make the future of open records enforcement uncertain.

Definite efforts to reform Iowa’s public information rules have brewed since 2007, when lawmakers commissioned a study into problems with open records and open meetings law. Saying the current laws have “many obvious problems,” several experts suggested a variety of “badly needed” reforms. Among those proposals was a call to create the Iowa Public Information Board — a new panel to enforce open information laws when citizens believe government agencies are non-compliant.

Support for the board has existed in the Iowa legislature, but its creation has failed over four legislative sessions. In the most recent session, both the House and Senate voted in favor of public information reform, but a particularly busy legislative session meant the amendments to the legislation were never reconciled between the two chambers.

“I’ve seen this happen before. Sometimes legislation takes a long time to get through the system of subcommittees and get on the floor and through reconciliation,” state Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, told The Iowa Independent. Johnson is one of few Senate Republicans who backs the creation of an Iowa public information board. “Sometimes it does take a number of years for something like this to win passage.”

Without a state-level body, every state agency, the 99 counties, almost 1,000 cities and all the many other governing bodies around Iowa are each charged with enforcing public information rules. That sometimes means enforcement isn’t uniform through every level of government. And — between county attorneys, the state ombudsman, the attorney general and litigation — the channels to appeal information denials aren’t always clear.

At the top of the ballot

Open government issues are garnering attention this year as both gubernatorial contenders launch allegations of corruption back and forth. However, neither incumbent Democrat Gov. Chet Culver or Republican challenger Terry Branstad have suggested a new open government enforcement board as a solution.

The Culver administration has touted open government as a priority, yet faced frequent run-ins with public information law. Over the last three years, the Democrat’s staff has denied requests from news organizations to turn over documents pertaining to a handful of state-level controversies.

Culver’s administration — backed by Attorney General Tom Miller — has also established a doctrine of charging sizable fees to have lawyers review documents to determine whether they can be released. Just this year, for instance, Culver staffers estimated a charge of $744 for a lawyer to review e-mails detailing alleged misconduct at the Iowa Department of Aging.

That charging-for-review policy in particular is providing attack fodder for the Branstad campaign. Branstad has called those fees “financial roadblocks,” preventing the public from accessing records.

Culver’s camp, too, has slammed the other side for running a less-than-accountable office. Most recently, the Culver campaign claimed Branstad used state resources and personnel to handle re-election campaign business during his 16-year tenure as governor. And Branstad has frequently been attacked for authorizing misleading accounting methods to spin a positive financial situation.

Along with the menu of slams, the campaigns have also produced a handful of solutions.

Branstad says a new body to field public information complaints from citizens isn’t necessary. Instead, he would direct the attorney general’s office to enforce public information law, campaign communications director Tim Albrecht told The Iowa Independent. That move would provide state oversight for public information rules, but as a division of an elected official’s office, it wouldn’t be entirely apolitical.

Culver has said he’s open to public information reform, but his administration is wary of supporting moves which would carry heavy costs. Additionally, Culver spokesman Jim Flansburg said it isn’t clear “that Iowans support a centralizing of authority in an area of law that has traditionally been enforced at the local level.”

Back in the legislature

Republicans in the Iowa Senate have been icy on creating a public information enforcement board. All but a handful of them voted against the move during the last session. So likely Republican gains in both chambers of the legislature could raise the hurdle for establishing that board.

“This is, as you can imagine, not a really good environment to try to introduce more government — another agency or another board or anything,” said Kathleen Richardson, director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council.

Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley told The Iowa Independent a new enforcement body isn’t necessary. Instead, the governor, the attorney general and county attorneys should mandate stricter compliance with the law.

And local governments have lobbied against an Iowa public information board, calling it an uneeded extra bureaucracy.

“At the end of the day, if you don’t agree with the opinion this agency might give, you’re going to do what you do now, which is go go court,” Alan Kemp, executive director of the Iowa League of Cities, told The Iowa Independent. “You’re unnecessarily putting this intervening agency in that doesn’t really have any benefit.”

Likewise, Mary Gannon, an attorney with the Iowa Association of School Boards, wrote in an e-mail, “If a separate state agency with full investigatory and prosecutorial power is established, then all of the other agencies with the same powers should lose those powers. We don’t believe it’s efficient, especially in tight budget times, to have three state agencies and all 99 county attorneys with the same power.”

While Johnson admitted it would be “another layer of bureaucracy,” he said it would also be a valuable resource for citizens and local governments.

“A board or commission that would at least answer questions about open meetings requirements would be very helpful,” he said in an interview. “I would assume anyone elected to office at any level ought to understand the requirements, but sometimes that doesn’t happen.”

Johnson also denies the idea that public information reform would largely only benefit the news organizations — often the primary requesters of government information. The Culver administration, for instance, has at least once justified a records review charge for The Des Moines Register by saying it wants to ensure “for-profit media” cover expenses, rather than the tax-payer.

“People think it’s just a bunch of media moguls going around championing this cause, but it’s not for them,” he said. “It’s for the public. This is about people knowing what their government is doing with their tax dollars.”