The Georgia First Amendment Foundation is tracking government transparency legislation as the 2020 General Assembly proposes to make changes that might help - or hurt - the public's right to know. Below are some of the top issues we're following.
Bills are active for two years, so the updates below also include legislation proposed or enacted in 2019.
Senate Bill 288 would amend and broaden Georgia’s criminal record expungement law to restrict access to criminal history information where there is “a disposition other than a conviction for a charge,” if a conviction consisted of completed drug, mental health or veterans treatment; if a conviction is vacated or overturned; or once 10 years have passed after a conviction if the person has no other convictions. It would also remove the requirement that those seeking to have records expunged petition the court in certain circumstances. And it would remove a clerk’s ability to consider the public interest in keeping the records public in making a restriction decision.
House Bill 734 – Create a Journalism Ethics Board to investigate and oversee accredited media and require media to provide interview recordings and photographs to subjects (Status: Introduced April 2, 2019, assigned to House Judiciary Committee.)
The bill would create a nine-member Journalism Ethics Board consisting of three editors, three news producers, one retired professor and two members of internet-based media to oversee accredited media though investigations and sanctions, canons, advisory opinions and the handling of complaints. The bill would also grant interview subjects the right to request any photographs, audio and video recordings taken by a journalist, free of charge, and subjects journalists that fail to respond in a timely manner to civil penalties. GFAF opposes this bill.
Read GFAF commentary about why House Bill 734 would impair Georgians’ access to accountability journalism.
GFAF initially had major concerns about the bill because its original language would have eliminated a key date for campaign contribution disclosures. But changes approved by both the House and Senate fixed the issue.
Read an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story detailing the politics surrounding Senate Bill 213.
Current Georgia law generally allows a person to make an audio recording of any conversation that he or she is a part of, including conversations in which the person is subjected to verbal abuse, threats or asked to participate in wrongdoing. The ability to record such conversations with a smartphone or other device is an important tool for citizens seeking to protect themselves. Senate Bill 59 would change the law and require citizens to get permission from every other party to a conversation in a non-public setting before making an audio recording. This bill follows a 2018 audio recording of then Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle saying he supported a “bad” bill to gain an advantage in the race for governor. Republican gubernatorial candidate Clay Tippens made the recording.
Read GFAF's commentary about how this bill could infringe on citizens’ ability to protect themselves and give a free pass to the bad guys.
GFAF pushed to amend a portion of House Bill 316, which generally laid the foundation for Georgia to adopt a new touch-screen voting system and to rectify issues in its current voting procedures. In Section 7, the bill authorized the secretary of state to become a member of a “nongovernmental entity whose purpose is to share and exchange information in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of voter-registration systems.” The bill then broadly exempts the secretary of state from having to publicly disclose any “information received” from this nongovernmental entity. That provision is far too broad. It may be appropriate to exempt certain confidential voting data provided by the organization, but any “information received” from the organization conceals information, including routine communications about the goals, purposes and strategies for an organization that will apparently operate outside of traditional governmental checks and balances.
This legislation amended the state Open Records Act to make it explicit that the law applies to nonprofit organizations to which the assets of a hospital authority have been transferred. Georgia case law already requires such nonprofit organizations to comply with the Open Records Act. In particular, the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Smith v. Northside Hospital re-affirmed this point. This statutory change emphasized even more clearly that the act applies to such nonprofits.
House Bill 308 – Revise open records law such that public records shall not be held exclusively by private entities
(Status: Did not make 2019 crossover deadline, held in House Governmental Affairs Committee, still active)
The proposal would prevent public agencies from delegating their responsibility to be custodian of public records exclusively to a private entity. The legislation appears to be aimed at making sure public agencies do not lose control of public records, which are rightly the property of the public, by conferring them to a private entity.
House Resolution 164 – Authorize a constitutional amendment to provide that revenues derived from fees or taxes must be dedicated to the public purpose for which such fees or taxes were imposed
(Status: Senate-revised version of bill didn't pass the House in 2019; still active)
This “truth-in-fees” legislation would put a proposed constitutional amendment on next year’s ballot that would limit the ability of state officials to divert money from fees and taxes meant for special purposes. For example, tire and landfill fees were authorized by the General Assembly in the 1990s for the specific purpose of cleaning up hazardous waste areas, and these fees have raised about $230 million over the past decade, but more than $150 million has been diverted to the general fund. This “anti-bait-and-switch” legislation has passed the Georgia House, but the Senate limited the scope to cover cleanups of tire dumps, landfills and hazardous waste sites. So the House will need to reconsider the modified bill for it to pass this year. In prior years, similar legislation originating in the House has failed to pass in the Senate.