Public Access News of Note: March 9, 2023
A quick look at headlines concerning freedom of access, public information, and other First Amendment issues.
Proposed reforms to Michigan’s freedom of information law
Two Michigan legislators are proposing to add language to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) clarifying the type of documents covered by the law.
A press release from the Michigan Senate Republicans states Sen. Michael Webber and Rep. Mark Tisdel introduced companion bills in their respective legislative houses following a “a shocking Oakland County Circuit Court ruling that found a union member teacher’s class curriculum was not accountable to FOIA despite the educator being an employee of a public school system.”
The case that spurred the bills involved Carol Beth Litkouhi, a parent and board of education trustee, whose requests for curriculum material from a history of ethnic and gender studies class were not fulfilled by the Rochester Community School District. Litkouhi eventually sued, alleging the district’s withholding of materials violated the state’s FOIA law.
In December, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Cunningham ruled against Litkouhi, finding that because teachers are employees and not public bodies, the records they produce are not “public” records and are not covered under the state’s FOIA law.
Webber’s and Tisdel’s bills look to fix this loophole by expanding the definition of public records to include “any officer, employee, contractor, volunteer, or other agent of a public body in the scope of that person’s duties to the public body.”
As of March 9, both bills had been referred to committee in the Senate and House respectively.
Three bills filed in Arkansas Senate to clarify Arkansas Freedom of Information Act
State Sen. Alan Clark recently filed three bills in the Arkansas Senate that would clarify the state’s freedom of information law.
The first would add clarifying language to the definition of a public meeting. It would define a meeting as the “convening of two or more members of a governing body of a public entity for which a quorom [sic] is required to make a decision, discuss public business, or deliberate toward a decision on any matter.” It would also exclude an on-site inspection and a chance interaction between two or more members of a governing body of a public entity from the definition of a public meeting. The bill would further prohibit two or more members of a governing body of a public entity from discussing public business during an informal or chance public meeting.
Clark’s second bill would require responses to freedom of information act requests within three business days if no responsive records exist, if responsive records exist but are covered by exemptions to the law, or if the request was submitted to an agency or body that does not have control over the records in question.
The third bill would require annual mandatory freedom of information training for “members of the governing body of each city, county, and school board.” The bill specifies that the training must be either in-person or held by live video training, be a minimum of two hours, and be open to the public. The training would also have to cover any newly enacted legislation, new precedent from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, as well as public meetings and public records requirements, and rules for best practices for responding to records requests.
Public Experience with Public Records Laws survey: As more Americans than ever file public records requests, we’re looking for information on how the public interacts with freedom of information laws. Whether or not you’ve ever filed a request, consider filling out our survey and share your impressions of how well current freedom of information laws work.