Richard T. Griffiths of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation has asked Georgia lawmakers to take a deep breath, step on the brakes, and reconsider the “overall sweep” of Senate Bill 215, which would allow for the redacting of names and property rights from state databases of the Law enforcement would require personnel, politicians and hundreds of thousands of other government officials.
Legislators didn’t let up, and the legislation sponsored by Senator Matt Brass, a Newnan Republican, swept through the Senate Thursday by a 53-0 vote without debate. It now goes to the House of Representatives, which could approve the bill in the coming weeks, an alarming development for transparency advocates.
“The Georgia Open Records Act already provides extensive protections for public officials’ personal information and records, which specifically identify public officials in their jobs to close their offices, but none of these bills will prevent the dissemination of information that is already commercially online and available in other states in Georgia,” Griffiths said. “We know these bills are well intentioned. We know there are potential problems here, but we don’t think these bills in writing will solve those problems, without possibly causing chaos.”
These so-called redaction laws, which redact personal information from government databases, were introduced in 12 states this year, according to the Uniform Law Commission, a national organization. Lawmakers across the country see public official harassment as a threat to buildings.
(READ MORE: Hamilton County extends vacation rental permit pause again as updated rules near finalization)
In a Senate Oversight Committee hearing on Monday, Senator Randy Robertson, a Cataula Republican, scoffed at Griffiths’ suggestion that there could be a “mess” with public records such as real estate transactions.
Sen. Jason Esteves, an Atlanta Democrat, outlined his companion bill, Senate Bill 176, which would allow personally identifiable information on a variety of government employees to be redacted in public documents. Violators may be subject to significant civil penalties, including punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Esteves’ bill was also passed unanimously in committee, with support from the bipartisan committee, and will go to the Senate vote on Monday.
EDITORIAL INVOICES
The campaign against transparency of government records is a growing trend in states across the country.
Amye Bensenhaver, co-founder of the Kentucky Open Government Coalition and retired assistant attorney general in that state, did not hide her dismay at what she described as a lack of foresight on the part of lawmakers, not only in Georgia but in other states as well. Kentucky has tried three times to pass a bill similar to SB 215, she said, and the bill has been withdrawn each time.
“It sounds good in practice to protect our officers, but the reality is the genie is out of the bottle, information (addresses, government phone numbers) is everywhere,” Bensenhaver said. “These bills are window dressing. That will not protect officials. How do you protect people when this information is all over the internet?”
Megan Rhyne of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government added: “These bills address a small part of the problem because there are multiple sources for the same information. No one wants to appear like they’re voting to harm judges, however. The bills fly through with just a handful of no votes.”
It’s not just advocates of open government who are concerned about these redaction laws. Real estate and title search firms, county officials, local communities and the media, while acknowledging the increasing threats to government officials, have opposed the bills and called for restraint.
Motivations to hide officials’ identification details can be commendable as government officials are increasingly harassed at home, and worse. A judge’s son was murdered in the doorway of his New Jersey home by a man who found the judge’s address, presumably through an internet search. The New Jersey legislature passed the Daniel’s Law, named after the murdered man, 20-year-old Daniel Anderl. It is similar to Georgia’s SB 215.
But while Griffiths expressed his sympathy for government officials and their desire to protect family members, he argued that Georgia’s Open Records Act already provides extensive protections for government officials and their families. It does nothing to delete the addresses from private, profit-oriented search engines.
(READ MORE: Tennessee Senate Chief Introduces Bill to Shut Down Public Records in Noncriminal Death Investigations)
Instead, Griffiths said under SB 215, “slumlords” would find it easier to hide derelict property, politicians running for office could protect their assets from scrutiny, and even live outside the district where they are running for office.
“The bills clearly reverse the idea that Georgians who serve the public should conduct their business outdoors,” Griffiths said.
Open government advocates agree.
“First, there is a legitimate public need to know what property our public employees own to prevent corruption,” said David Cuillier, director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida. “Countless stories document public servants evading property taxes, being bribed, living outside the jurisdictions they serve, or even acting as slumlords in communities they serve. If those records are secret, bad actors will rob the taxpayers.
“Secondly, few people would object to keeping personal cell phone numbers private, but government-issued phones? If they do public business, then it is public business.”
In Arizona, journalists published the home address of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in an article about his real estate dealings. The sheriff investigated the publication’s two media executives and jailed them. Cuillier says SB 176 and SB 215 could lead to criminal charges against Georgia media.
“These laws can and have been abused,” Cuillier said.
In New Jersey, the South Bound Brook District removed all resolutions, agendas, and minutes from its website to comply with Daniel’s Law. Esteves of Georgia amended SB 176 to protect government employees who inadvertently release public officials’ personal information. Daniel’s Law threatened New Jersey’s public records with so much doom that lawmakers had to create the Office of Information Privacy to oversee its implementation.
VEIL OF SECRECY
The proposed law could also burden workers such as county officials with finding and redacting publicly available information on 700,000 current and former Georgia city, county and state employees, as counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. District clerks could also be responsible for redactions in year-old paper records.
Of course, this means that county officials may want to know what’s in store for them with the requirements in SB 215 and SB 176. Amanda Hannah, president of the Georgia County Clerks Association, said last week she was unaware of the upcoming legislation.
(READ MORE: Hamilton County halts records destruction policy and promises better rules)
In Kentucky, SB 63 did not go to the state vote in March 2022 because backlash from public employees and county officials was harsh, Bensenhaver said.
Private companies that do business with government data also warn of the risks.
“These bills don’t allow for some of the key elements, such as authorized access to the transfer of real estate,” said Jeremy Yohe of the American Land Title Association. “What happens when someone changes jobs or moves? If information is removed from the records – since it is technically in the public domain – is that permanent removal? The title insurance industry wants this information to be shielded but available in the future.
“This legislation should include some best practices to avoid unintended consequences.”
The association said access to confidential information could be granted to licensed attorneys, title professionals and appraisers, and others who sign non-disclosure agreements.
“We support the safety of these officers — judges, police officers — whoever goes with it,” Yohe said. “The best way to shield this information is to restrict access to the data without removing or altering the public records.”
“These bills will do little to protect public employees – they just give them a false sense of security that could actually do more harm,” said Cuillier of the Brechner Center. “Anyone can be found fairly quickly and easily online other than through public records. If the problem is people harassing or threatening government employees in the home, then deal with that problem head-on: tighten sanctions for harassment, provide more protection.
“These bills will do nothing but embolden corrupt officials who will rob taxpayers behind a veil of secrecy. It is well-intentioned legislation that will lead to public harm.”
Read more at GeorgiaRecorder.com.
Sen. Matt Brass submitted his editorial bill to the Georgia Senate Government Oversight Committee on February 27, 2022. / Ross Williams, Georgia Recorders
