Bill on coroners’ records withdrawn
Senators in committee express skepticism on need to limit public access
Without a vote and without a word from the opposition, a bill to curtail the public’s access to county coroners’ reports in Arkansas died in committee Tuesday.
The legislation in question, Senate Bill 567, was pushed by coroners and other local officials to place more limits on documents that coroners are required to provide to the public under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
But after about 35 minutes of testimony that was met with skepticism by senators on the committee, the bill’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Cecile Bledsoe, R-Rogers, decided to withdraw it from consideration before those opposed could testify against it, saying, “I think it’s obvious it’s not going anywhere.”
Bledsoe said after pulling the bill that she may try to amend it in some way to “meet in the middle,” then bring it back for consideration at a later date.
While supporters of the bill cited privacy concerns, news organizations worried that putting more restrictions on information that residents and reporters alike can obtain from government officials would be a blow to transparency.
“This would have been a big strike against FOIA and transparency, not just for the press, but for the public,” said Wesley Brown, publisher of the Daily Record, who represented the Arkansas Press Association at the committee meeting.
Saline County Coroner Kevin Cleghorn, president of the Arkansas Coroner’s Association, said families of the dead would rather not have their family members’ records subjected to Freedom of Information Act requests.
“Where we’re having the biggest problem is with the privacy aspect,” Cleghorn said.
Scott Bradley, executive director of the Arkansas Sheriffs’ Association, said releasing documents from a coroner’s report is “just information we don’t need out.”
But their concerns were met with skepticism by some members of the Senate City, County and Local Affairs Committee.
State Sen. Mark Johnson, R-Ferndale, said he was skeptical that state Freedom of Information Act requests interfered with law enforcement investigations, noting that sheriffs in his district hadn’t alerted him to the issue.
Johnson said he was sympathetic to concerns about privacy but was more concerned about how the bill could limit the state’s Freedom of Information Act, which is “the last vanguard we’ve had against corruption.”
“But I also know that the greater safeguard that the people have is access to information,” Johnson said.
State Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, said the introduction of the bill had “terrible timing,” noting that he had trouble accessing public information related to a friend who was murdered.
“The investigation, as far as I know, is over. The court case is over,” Clark said. “I still don’t know anything, so I’m just frustrated because I’m a state senator and I’m having a real time getting information — a real hard time getting information.”
If enacted, the bill would have made all records gathered or created during a coroner’s investigation confidential at least until an investigation by a coroner, law enforcement agency or prosecuting attorney was completed. Some coroner records would be subject to requests, while other information wouldn’t be.
The idea for the bill was prompted by public records requests from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, said George Spence, an attorney who represents Benton County.
Over the past year, the Democrat-Gazette used coroners’ reports to detail the life stories of some Arkansans who died from covid-19.
Coroners’ records obtained by the Democrat-Gazette were also used to report on causes of child deaths in Arkansas. Using those and other records, the newspaper among other things found that more than 100 children died between 2012 and 2017 after their families had come under scrutiny by child welfare workers or law enforcement authorities.
Some coroners were hesitant to release sensitive information contained in some of the reports related to child deaths, Spence said.
Eliza Gaines, managing editor of the Democrat-Gazette, had planned to speak against the bill before Bledsoe pulled it.
“I would say that the public’s right to know outweighs privacy even in sensitive cases like this, involving children,” Gaines said. “In a lot of cases, we use that next-of-kin information to reach out to the family members who wanted to tell their children’s life story.”