Public paperwork belong to the general public
The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and doesn’t set insurance policies or contribute to reporting or enhancing articles elsewhere within the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
We shouldn’t must say this: Public paperwork belong to the general public. That is very true when the paperwork relate to the spending of public funds.
With this rationale in thoughts, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court docket, for the primary time, dominated on Tuesday {that a} county commissioners’ group acted in “unhealthy religion” when it didn’t fulfill a request for paperwork beneath the state’s Freedom of Entry Act. Due to the willpower of unhealthy religion, the group was ordered to pay affordable legal professional’s charges for the litigation of this case that started greater than two years in the past.
The ruling strengthens Maine’s open data legislation by clarifying that when authorities actors dishonestly reply to a data request, these actions can represent “unhealthy religion.” Whereas the ruling is optimistic information for these, together with journalists, in search of entry to public paperwork, many entities don’t have the assets to hunt these paperwork by an extended court docket battle. As a substitute, public entities ought to adjust to the necessities and timelines included within the state’s FOAA legislation.
“The paperwork on this case are public, and there’s a sturdy public curiosity in understanding using taxpayer {dollars} and settlements stemming from allegations of misconduct in Maine jails. These paperwork ought to have been launched in 2021 once they have been requested,” Anahita Sotoohi, a authorized fellow with the ACLU of Maine, stated in a press launch. The ACLU represented the nonprofit that sought the paperwork from the nation commissioners’ group. “Maine’s Freedom of Entry Act has been the legislation since 1959, however that is the primary time that unhealthy religion has been present in a FOAA case and that legal professional charges have been awarded. Establishing this normal is a big victory for transparency and the power of Maine’s folks to carry the federal government accountable. ”
This case entails the main points of a monetary cost that was a part of a settlement in a federal extreme power lawsuit filed by Jonathan Afanador, who accused guards on the Kennebec County Correctional Heart of beating him, pepper-spraying him and utilizing a racial slur.
The Human Rights Protection Heart (HRDC), a nonprofit group that advocates for folks held in U.S. detention facilities, had sought details about a cost to Afandor to settle the case. The price of the settlement was paid by the Maine County Commissioners Affiliation’s self-funded Threat Administration Pool, a bunch that insures Maine’s county governments, together with Kennebec County, and is accountable for protecting the prices of authorized settlements.
An legal professional for the danger pool informed the Press Herald in 2021 that the case was settled for a cost of $30,000. However, when the Human Rights Protection Heart filed a FOAA request for extra data, it was given a doc that stated the case was settled for “one greenback and different precious consideration.” When it pressed for extra data, it was given a duplicate of the newspaper story.
Final yr, Maine Superior Court docket Justice Daniel Billings stated the danger pool acted in unhealthy religion by not offering the requested paperwork and ordered the danger administration pool to pay attorneys’ charges and launch the wrongfully withheld paperwork.
The state’s highest court docket upheld that willpower.
“The Threat Pool’s failure to provide any of its data in response to HRDC’s FOAA request, regardless of HRDC’s repeated efforts to make clear what ought to have already got been clear, can solely be seen as, within the [superior] court docket’s phrases, ‘misleading and abusive of the FOAA course of.’ We agree with the court docket that the Threat Pool’s response constituted a bad-faith refusal,” Justice Andrew Horton wrote for the court docket.
This case needs to be a reminder to public entities that stall or refuse to launch public paperwork. Doing so is an abuse of the state’s open data course of.
