A transparently untransparent and nefariously nefarious bill overhauling the Open Public Meetings Act (OPRA) today goes before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The only thing unpredictable about the bill is that even Trenton lawmakers knew better than to call it the “Even More Open Public Meetings Act,” although the bill’s allies act like they would have found such a title beneficial.
Barely disguised as an enterprise of efficiency, the bill (4045) “makes various changes to the law governing access to government records, commonly known as the open public records act, including the following”:
modifies the conditions under which a records custodian has to respond to a request for records, allowing the custodian discretion to deny duplicative or anonymous requests;
encourages and allocates funds to assist public agencies in moving documents online, making these records searchable via an online database, to the extent feasible;
creates a uniform and comprehensive definition of “personal identifying information” which, in many cases, is redacted by the records custodian;
establishes specific timelines for responses to records requests occurring under various circumstances, such as when a record may be unavailable or in storage, and adds additional specificity and clarity to the items and information which are exempt from public access;
prohibits records requests made by or for data brokers, who take the information they gather and use it for a commercial purpose;
transfers the responsibility for violations from the custodian to the public agency, and allows, in limited circumstances, for the courts to issue a protective order to shield the agency from harassment;
alters the composition of the Government Records Council, adding more public members, establishing staggered five year terms, and annual salaries; and
establishes a Police Record Access Improvement Task Force to investigate the existing statutes governing public access to police records and develop recommendations for necessary changes to the law.
“New Jersey’s 22-year-old Open Public Records Act, OPRA, is an important public policy that has problems. Many of them are related to age, which has exposed difficulties in dealing with new technologies, the commercial demand for data, administrative complexity, costs, privacy concerns, and loopholes. It is widely acknowledged that OPRA needs fixing. Recent legislative hearings highlighted that. But debates about changes often involve accusations between parties, making productive discussion impossible. Reforms attempted in private by a few groups fail because they do not consider different viewpoints or unintended impacts. This causes more public distrust in government. But let’s start with this immutable truth: OPRA can and must be improved.”
All well and good.
But that first provision of the bill alone:
modifies the conditions under which a records custodian has to respond to a request for records, allowing the custodian discretion to deny duplicative or anonymous requests
negates the act.
Much of the rest of A-4045 contains language sufficiently amorphous to turn the intention of OPRA against itself, or more pointedly, against the public.
All in the name, of course, of the public.
The hearing is scheduled for noon, today, Thursday, March 14th.
(Visited 38 times, 42 visits today)
Transparency versus nontransparency is a hotly debated topic in the world of politics, business, and beyond. While some argue that transparency is essential for accountability and trust, others believe that certain information should be kept confidential for various reasons. Let’s take a closer look at this ongoing debate and explore the pros and cons of each side.
Transparency advocates argue that openness and honesty are crucial for maintaining public trust and holding individuals and organizations accountable. When information is readily available to the public, it can help prevent corruption, unethical behavior, and abuse of power. Transparency also promotes better decision-making by allowing stakeholders to have access to all relevant information.
On the other hand, proponents of nontransparency argue that there are certain situations where confidentiality is necessary to protect sensitive information, such as trade secrets, national security, or personal privacy. In some cases, disclosing too much information can actually be harmful or counterproductive. Nontransparency can also be used strategically to maintain a competitive advantage or negotiate more effectively.
In the realm of politics, transparency is often seen as a cornerstone of democracy. Citizens have a right to know how their government operates and how decisions are made on their behalf. Transparency can help prevent corruption and ensure that elected officials are held accountable for their actions. However, some argue that too much transparency can hinder the government’s ability to function effectively, as sensitive negotiations or security measures may be compromised.
In the business world, transparency is increasingly becoming a priority for consumers and investors. Companies that are open and honest about their practices, policies, and performance are more likely to earn trust and loyalty from customers. Transparency can also help attract top talent and build a positive reputation in the marketplace. However, some businesses may choose to keep certain information confidential to protect their intellectual property or maintain a competitive edge.
Ultimately, the debate between transparency and nontransparency is a complex and nuanced one. While transparency is generally seen as a positive force for accountability and trust, there are valid arguments for maintaining confidentiality in certain situations. Finding the right balance between openness and discretion is key to navigating this ongoing debate in a way that serves the best interests of all stakeholders.