ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

In a proposal intended for submission to the Legislature by Pima County, Conover pointed out that the state's public records law "has not been changed significantly since it was enacted" and funding provided by the state is utterly inadequate to the task of reviewing and redacting public records, particularly since the advent of law-enforcement body-camera footage.

Good points. And we wholeheartedly agree with one of the solution steps Conover proposed: "A bill to provide additional funding to public officials and agencies to respond" to public records requests.

The rest of her ideas, not so much.

Her proposed solutions would make more documents off limits and charge requestors of records up-front fees for the work of retrieving and vetting records.

This, we believe, would abuse the very definition of “public� records.

Yes, fulfilling public records requests can be expensive, particularly with the  proliferation of video. But it is every public agency’s responsibility under the law. And it fundamental to democracy. Public records requests — and even the knowledge that documents can be requested and obtained by the public — help to keep governments honest and accountable.

Anything that puts up barriers to that access makes agencies less transparent and less accountable. Charging large fees for records often becomes a constructive denial. If exercising a First Amendment right becomes prohibitively expensive, democracy suffers.

In recent years, there has been a huge increase in agencies trying to charge requestors for exercising their legal right to public records. A frequent stratagem is introducing charges for legal vetting of requests, to make sure that released documents don’t violate personal privacy.

We understand the right to privacy. But philosophically, that vetting to protect privacy is the agency’s responsibility, not the requestor’s.

To put the cost burden on the requestor perverts the intent of public records law, dividing would-be requestors by socioeconomic status into those who can afford to take advantage of democracy’s protections and those who can’t.

Conover essentially admits this in her proposal, calling it a feature, not a bug. “Charging for broad requests that require viewing voluminous records or difficult to access records would help deter harassing and voluminous (requests),� the proposal says.

So who gets to decide whether a request is “harassing�? And who gets to decide whether a request is “voluminous�? Putting those controls in the hands of any public agency guts public-records law.

Worse, Conover wants agencies to have the right to sue over requests the agency deems “vexatious or frivolous� — putting even more weapons to deny and suppress public-records requests into agencies’ hands.

Limiting the scope what documents are eligible for public disclosure is also antidemocratic. Conover is attempting to apply more exemptions to records law, ruling more documents out of the public’s reach.

Even though media organizations like the Star have weapons to fight for records, the average citizen does not.

It’s unfortunate for Conover that this comes as her office is currently involved in litigation involving public records. David Berkman, a former chief criminal deputy in the county attorney’s office, is suing to obtain documents related to the civil suit over the Pioneer Hotel fire prosecution. Berkman contends Conover’s proposed changes to public records law are all about him. While that seems less than likely and Conover has specifically denied it, it's awkward.

We are pleased that the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to remove Conover’s proposal from its legislative agenda in its current form. Conover has pledged to hold stakeholder conversations to modify the proposals. We look forward to that process and a different result.