Texarkana Gazette

Sanders, lawmakers backtrack on proposal to change FOI Act

- ANDREW DEMILLO

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Republican­s in the Legislatur­e on Tuesday backed off a widespread plan to restrict the public’s access to records about Sanders’ administra­tion, but they said they will still seek limits on what can be released about the GOP governor’s travel and security.

Republican lawmakers filed legislatio­n exempting release of the travel and security records after an outcry over a proposal to significan­tly scale back the state’s Freedom of Informatio­n Act. A wide range of critics that included media groups, transparen­cy advocates and some conservati­ves had complained the initial legislatio­n would erode the 1967 law protecting the public’s access to government records and meetings.

“The security of our governor and her family should be the top priority for us,” Senate President Bart Hester said at a news conference at the state Capitol with Senate Republican­s.

The legislatio­n would allow the state to wall off details about the security provided Sanders and other constituti­onal officers, including who travels on the State Police airplane and the cost of individual trips. Sanders is seeking the limits as State Police is being sued by an attorney and blogger who has accused the agency of illegally withholdin­g records about the governor’s travel and security.

In calling for the restrictio­ns, Sanders has cited death threats she has faced over the years, going back to her time as former President Donald Trump’s press secretary. Sanders said Tuesday she had asked the House and Senate to file legislatio­n limited to her security, calling it “the most critical and important element of FOIA reform.”

“Nobody said changing the status quo would be easy but this is a great starting place for making our government safer

and more effective,” she said in a statement.

The latest legislatio­n removes other provisions that critics said would have shielded a host of records about state government agencies, including a measure that would have blocked the release of records “reflecting communicat­ions” between the governor’s office and her 15 appointed cabinet secretarie­s.

The newest bill also removes proposals facing opposition that would have created an attorney-client privilege exemption for state records and a change in how attorneys’ fees are awarded in open records lawsuits.

Democrats said they still have concerns about the bill, but they were glad to see it narrowed down to security. Democratic Sen. Clarke Tucker said he wants to study the latest measure further but said any concerns he may have “pale in comparison” to the original legislatio­n.

“My biggest concerns were just crippling government transparen­cy in Arkansas, which the previous bill would have done,” Tucker said.

Robert Steinbuch, law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock’s William H. Bowen School of law and an outspoken critic of the more widespread limits that had been proposed, called the new bill “a good result.”

“I’m thankful that we got to this result and I’m thankful for the people of Arkansas because this is the right outcome,” Steinbuch said.

The legislatio­n filed Tuesday would require State Police to file quarterly reports that identifies by month and budget category expenses for the governor’s security. It would also make the exemptions on the governor’s security retroactiv­e to June 1, 2022.

The proposed open-records limits were among several items Sanders had placed on the agenda for a special session that began Monday. But they dominated lawmakers’ attention, with a Senate panel hearing several hours of testimony over the more far-reaching exemptions.

Groups such as the Arkansas Press Associatio­n, the Arkansas chapter of the Society of Profession­al Journalist­s and a task force the Legislatur­e formed in 2017 to review FOI measures had strongly opposed the previous legislatio­n. The press associatio­n’s president told lawmakers during the hearing the associatio­n would support the legislatio­n if it was limited to “reasonable safety provisions.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States