FREFACE This report was prepared under the auspices of the Southern Governmental Monitoring Project (SGMP), a special project of the Southern Regional Council, Inc. SGMP was established in 1973 under grants from the Carnegie rporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Mary Reynolds Babcock sundation to monitor and evaluate the performance of state and local governments in eleven Southern states (those that were in the confederacy). Since its inception the project has released special reports, provided legislative testimony, and offered technical assistance on a variety of issues affecting state and local implementation of federal programs. Beginning in June 1974 forty interns, primarily law and graduate students, began ten to twelve weeks of intensive field research in forty communities in the 11 states. They interviewed city and county. officials, community group leaders, media representatives, and intended beneficiaries of numerous programs. A major concern of their work was to identify and report on citizen participation at the state and local level. The experience of the interns with government agencies lead the project staff to conclude that a separate examination of the laws purporting to grant access to information and to meetings was called for. Ronald L. Plesser, a Washington, D. C. attorney and former director of the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse, agreed to conduct the analysis with the assistance of Peter J. Petkas, also an attorney and ociate director of the project. For the convenience of users, the report has been published in eleven versions, each emphasizing the laws of one of the 11 Southern states. The core report contains an analysis of state freedcm of information and open meetings ("sunshine") laws generally, a section-by-section examination of model laws prepared by the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse and Common Cause, and a Guide to the Federal Freedom of Information Act, as recently amended. Each separate state version, subtitled "Emphasis: Georgia", etc., also contains an analysis of the laws of that state relating to government information and meetings with copies of those laws for reference. These reports are designed primarily to give attorneys, public officials, news reporters and editors, and citizen groups insights into the present access laws in their states. They are intended to be useful to lay persors as well as to lawyers wishing an overview of the field. The SOUTHERN REGIONAL COUNCIL is the South's oldest bi-racial research and action-oriented organization devoted to the attainment of equal opportunity for all citizens in the region. The Council is a private, non-profit, and nonpartisan institution. ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION A GENERAL DISCUSSION Public officials, whether career civil servants, elected, or political appointees, seem all too often to have one thing in common: they like secrecy. Confidential memos, secret documents, closed meetings, and the like have become a way of life for too many public servants at every level. The unstated reasons for this secrecy might include: if the public doesn't know what's going on, how can they complain? Public officials are in a much better position than the public to know what decisions to make. If citizens have too much information, it would just confuse them. Fortunately, not all officials think this way and there are, of course, circumstances in which confidentiality may be justified. But too often, secrecy is the rule, rather than the exception. This preference for secrecy has serious consequences. Far too often, for instance, official reports that a nursing home is a fire trap that a food processing plant is contaminated become public only after tragedy strikes. Financial scandals are discovered only after public funds have been channeled into private pockets. And special interests learn about locations of proposed highways, airports, and public buildings long before the press or the people. Perhaps it is human nature that even well-meaning and honest officials fear unfavorable publicity and wish to have their actions seen in the best light. But recent events in Washington and in a number of states have demonstrated that the price of sealed files and closed doors is too high. The first step in opening both is to 52-004 O 75 25 2 guarantee by law the public's right to know what officials of their government are doing. "Government in the sunshine" in a broad sense must begin with effective public access legislation and open meetings laws. open records Openness in government clearly serves the public, but it can make the job of governing easier too. The president of a local board of education discovered this first hand: government. When I was elected president of the board we had executive sessions every week and public meetings every first and third Thursday. I immediately checked and found that the education law required privacy on personnel items and property acquisition only. After discussion with the board, the majority, though listing many private reservations, left it to my discretion. I immediately opened up all the meetings except in the two areas limited by law. This meant staff reports as well as budget preparations were now discussed openly with the press at hand. This was the best thing I could have done. Not only did If people are in the dark, they can only be distrustful of The public will no longer believe blanket statements, for example, that all government-licensed hospitals and all governmentapproved pesticides or drugs are safe and that all government agencies are scandal free. In Georgia, food service inspection reports are not required to be made available for public inspection according to an unofficial opinion of an Assistant Attorney General (U73-84, Approved August 31, |