Wyoming’s Supreme Court handed the state’s government agencies a tremendous opportunity recently.
The court ruled 3-2 on Nov. 30 that government agencies may charge members of the public a fee to simply look at public documents that exist only in an electronic form. Not to grab a copy and walk off, mind you. Wyoming’s laws have always allowed for a “reasonable” copying fee for someone wanting to get a hard copy of a document. The Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to anyone simply wanting to see, view or inspect an electronic document.
This ruling was a bit of a surprise coming from a court that has steadfastly defended government transparency throughout the 47-year history of the Wyoming Public Records Act. Writing for the majority, Justice William Hill said there are costs associated with retrieving electronic documents that do not exist when dealing with paper files.
Now, this flies in the face of what Wyoming’s taxpayers were told while being asked to spend billions of dollars on advanced computer systems for government agencies – that it is easier to store and retrieve documents in an electronic form than in a paper form.
Justice Hill’s ruling said the costs associated with electronic documents are so onerous as to render a crucial line of Wyoming law meaningless: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a fee to be charged as a condition of making a public record available for inspection.” (W.S. 16-4-204(a)).
But no matter.
The important thing to note here is that the Supreme Court ruled government agencies MAY charge a fee for the simple service of making public documents available to the very people who paid for them. Not shall or must. May.
This means the state’s cities, towns, counties, school districts – any entity that generates documents – can now take the lead in promoting the principles of government transparency.
A properly operating government relies on an informed electorate capable of deciding how it should be governed. Access to the government documents that spell out how government resources are used and why government decisions are made is crucial to that goal.
As a result, when asked to retrieve a document, local government agencies should think twice before taking advantage of the court’s ruling.
A person making a reasonable request to see public documents should not be discouraged from doing so by an access fee.
After all, Wyoming’s taxpayers have already paid to have these documents generated and stored. Charging someone a fee to simply inspect what they already own doesn’t make much sense.
It would be reasonable to guess the overwhelming majority of people running for public office in Wyoming vowed to keep the voters informed on what happens within government.
Here is the opportunity to live up to those promises, to set the pace for transparency in Wyoming, by adopting policies that would allow people to simply inspect at no cost the documents they already own.
Of course, occasionally, a burdensome request will be received. And Wyoming law gives agencies the latitude to deal with such requests in such a way their usual business won’t be disrupted.
But the bottom line for all government agencies at every level should be to increase citizen participation in government, not to discourage it.
Charging a fee for each and every document request, regardless of size or expanse, seems counterproductive.
As Justice Michael Davis wrote in the opinion’s dissent: “…(T)here can be no doubt that such fees could be used to discourage access.”
We fervently hope Justice Davis’ prediction does not come to pass. It now falls to the state’s elected officials to protect the rights of Wyoming’s citizens. The rights to review the information those citizens need to make informed decisions.
We are hopeful those officials will err on the side of the people.
Reader Comments(0)