Harrison made his “cottage industry” allegation in an op-ed-article in the Dec. 19 Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Attributing motive is always tricky, so it can’t be known with certainty that lawsuits are being filed solely to generate legal fees, but Harrison’s article inadvertently raises a legitimate question: Is there a better way to enforce the public’s important right of access to public records and meetings than by filing lawsuits?
There is. Iowa recently pioneered the establishment of an alternative by creating the Iowa Public Information Board to investigate complaints of violation of the state’s Sunshine laws and to resolve them.
The nine-member board is appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the Iowa Senate. No more than three members of the board can be members of the media and no more than three can be representatives of cities, counties or other political subdivisions. Aggrieved parties either can continue to look for redress in the courts or to seek it from the Public Information Board, which is authorized “to seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance or through mediation and settlement.” If the board finds probable cause that open-government laws have been violated, it can prosecute “before the board in a contested case proceeding” and impose civil penalties.
Iowa’s approach to enforcement of its Open Government laws is the brainchild of Arthur Bonfield, a brilliant member of the faculty of the University of Iowa’s College of Law and an expert on administrative law.
Professor Arthur Bonfield |
Richard Harrison says that to stop Florida lawyers from gaming the system, “people must empower their local government to fight” the lawsuits. But that would simply increase legal costs, including plaintiff lawyer fees. Arthur Bonfield has a better idea. He ought to be consulted about bringing the Iowa plan to Florida and other states with the same problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment