Maine lawmakers are divided over a bill that would require state agencies and officials to fulfill Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests within thirty days.
State law currently only states that FOAA requests must be fulfilled within “a reasonable time” after being submitted, a standard that is not clearly defined anywhere else in law.
One member of the Judiciary Committee preliminarily voted in support of this bill during Tuesday’s work session, while ten members opposed it and three were absent.
Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn), the sponsor of LD 152, explained the need for this amendment during a public hearing on the bill in February of this year.
“The Law’s current language requiring compliance within a reasonable time is too vague to be effective, and what is reasonable for an agency facing public scrutiny will be vastly different from what is reasonable for a concerned citizen seeking timely information,” said Rep. Libby.
In response to claims that the 30-day timeline would be unachievable, Libby identified multiple other states — including Vermont, California, New York, Illinois, and Maryland — that are able to meet similar, and sometimes stricter, deadlines.
“In recent years we have seen transparency and public access laws weaponized by those who would bog down governance or who have fallen prey to conspiracy theories,” said Secretary of State Shenna Bellows in her testimony against this bill.
“These requests distract from the real work of both governance and transparency, and a full response within 30 days would not be possible,” she argued. “Instead, it would imperil the accurate, safe, and secure conduct of Maine’s elections if implemented.”
“If this bill were to proceed, we would require several additional staff members to have any hope of complying with the law,” she concluded. “Even then, the threat of weaponization of requests remains, and additional staff members may not be able to comply with a deluge of requests.”
Given her repeated references to transparency requests as forms of “weaponization,” it appears Bellows views the common citizen as an enemy, and even a threat to Maine’s electoral system.
Many others offered testimony in opposition to this bill as well, arguing that it would not be feasible for them to meet the 30-day deadline, particularly due to limited staffing and resources.
Maine Policy Institute (MPI), on the other hand, suggested that implementing clear time frames would be a net positive both for those making requests and those fulfilling them.
“Clear deadlines reduce ambiguity, ensure consistent compliance, and set expectations for all parties involved,” said MPI. “Improved efficiency in handling records requests can enhance public trust and reduce potential litigation costs resulting from prolonged disputes over access to information.”
“Moreover, transparency is an essential tool for identifying inefficiencies and preventing
abuses of power. Timely access to records allows journalists, watchdog groups, and
everyday citizens to serve as vital checks on government actions,” MPI concluded. “In short, LD 152 fosters a more informed and engaged electorate.”
[RELATED: Maine DHHS Tried to Charge Media Outlet Over $250K to Fulfill a FOAA Request]
During Tuesday’s work session, several lawmakers explained the intent behind their preliminary votes on this bill.
Rep. Rachael Henderson (R-Rumford) expressed concern over setting a “hard and fast timeline” but explained that she would be voting in support of this bill because she had agreed to give Libby a “courtesy yes in committee,” but she said that she is not yet committed to giving the bill a yes vote on the floor of the House.
Later on, Rep. Henderson did explain that she would eventually like to discuss seeing certain agencies be held to a higher standard.
Rep. Elizabeth M. Caruso (R-Caratunk) largely echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the proposal would need more work before being passed into law.
“I think there are some players that do avoid or delay in responding, and I can understand the intent of this bill, however I believe this bill just needs more work,” Rep. Caruso said.
Rep. David A. Sinclair (D-Bath), who originally signed on as a cosponsor of this bill, explained that he decided to pull his support after the public hearing where he said he “learned a great deal from the testimony [they] received.”
Although he described the current standard as “squishy and amorphous,” he suggested that this is what works for Maine at this time.
Rep. Jennifer L. Poirier (R-Skowhegan) raised concerns that implementing a “stringent timeline” would “cost even more in the long run, and maybe not give people the information that they’re really looking for” due to an inability for officials to effectively conduct the research necessary to fulfill a given request.
Click Here for More Information on LD 152
Voting in opposition to LD 152 were Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Rep. Amy Kuhn (D-Falmouth), Sen. David Haggin (R-Penobscot), Rep. Poirier, Rep. Dani O’Halloran (D-Brewer), Rep. Dylan Pugh (Portland-D), Rep. David Sinclair (D-Bath), Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn), Rep. Caruso, and Rep. Mark Babin (R-Fort Fairfield).
Absent from Tuesday’s vote were Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), Rep. Ellie Sato (D-Gorham), and Rep. Aaron Dana of the Passamaquoddy Tribe.
Because the Judiciary Committee has not yet reported out its official recommendation for this bill, members votes, as well as the Committee’s final reports, may change.
Disclosure: The Maine Wire is a project of the Maine Policy Institute.
