Florida Supremes Bolster Public's Right to Access
Posted April 19, 2016 12:51 pm (1 comment)
The Florida Supreme Court last week reinforced a pillar of open government that the Legislature earlier this year attempted to erode.
In
a 5-2 decision Thursday, the court ruled that public
agencies that violate the state’s open-records laws are
liable for the legal fees of citizens, even if the error
in compliance was made in “good faith.” Contrast that
with bills before the Florida House and Senate this year
that sought to make such payments — which under current
law are mandatory — subject to a judge’s discretion.
Thankfully, those measures failed to pass. Proponents, which included the Florida League of Cities, argued that local governments are being squeezed financially by “frivolous” requests for public records.
The proposed solution, though, was to make it optional for judges to award fees. That would weaken the incentive for governments to comply with the law — they could drag their feet in providing the records or refuse to release them at all, and take their chances with a judge that they would get off scot-free.
Read the Supreme Ct. Decision:
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JACKSONVILLE POLICE & FIRE PENSION
FUND, etc., vs. CURTIS W. LEE, [April 14, 2016]
Plus, with no guarantee that they could recover attorney fees, private citizens would be discouraged from pursuing potentially costly legal action to ensure their right to access public records. The legislation would’ve had a chilling effect on open-records requests.
The case before the Florida Supreme Court illustrated the perils of delaying the public’s right to open government. Back in 2009, citizen activist Curtis Lee asked to review documents at the offices of the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund. According to the Jacksonville Times-Union, officials initially told him he would have to pay $326 for all the records before he could see them. When Lee said he wanted to review them all and pay for copies of only those he wanted, officials said that he would have to pay for someone to sit next to him while he reviewed the documents, for a total cost of $606.
Lee, suitably outraged, sued for access. Four years later a judge ordered the pension fund to pay him $75,576 in legal fees. Even though the fund already had spent more than $300,000 in court costs, it continued to fight the case all the way to the state Supreme Court.
Imagine how stubborn some public agencies would be in complying with the law if they thought they had a shot at escaping accountability. They would just plead ignorance to a judge and convince him it was mistake made in good faith.
In writing for the court’s majority, Justice Barbara Pariente rejected that scenario, writing that the purpose of the state’s open-records law is “frustrated” if individuals are forced to pay attorney’s fees, rather than the agency that violated the law.
“Even if not malicious or done in bad faith,” Pariente wrote, “the pension fund’s actions — which were found to be unlawful — had the effect of frustrating Lee’s constitutional right to access public records and required him to turn to the courts to vindicate that right.”
Pariente also employed the same argument as opponents of the legislation did. She wrote that the current government-pays statute “has the dual role of both deterring agencies from wrongfully denying access to public records and encouraging individuals to continue pursuing their right to access public records.”
Three cheers to the court for refusing to water down a public right that is fundamental to maintaining open government. It is a right to be exercised by everyone, not just those with deep pockets.
The Daytona Beach News Journal | Image and links added by the Observer
This piece was reprinted by the Columbia County Observer with permission or license.