David's blog

Thursday night, the state Senate passed (by a very narrow margin) HB 340 which provides that information regarding donors to Board of Regents institutions are not subject to disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act. After some negotiations in committee (and intense pressure from the media) an exception was added that says if the donor does business with the institution, the information is not protected.

The text of the exception reads:

"that the name of any donor and the amount of donation made by such donor shall be subject to disclosure if such donor or any entity in which such donor has a substantial interest transacts business with the public postsecondary educational institution to which the donation is made within three years of the date of such donation. As used in this paragraph, the term 'transact business' means to sell or lease any personal property, real property, or services on behalf of oneself or on behalf of any third party as an agent, broker, dealer, or representative in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 in the aggregate in a calendar year and the term 'substantial interest' means the direct or indirect ownership of more than 25 percent of the assets or stock of an entity."

At first blush, the exception seems good. And, it is a step closer in the right direction. But, when it comes to open records and the integrity of the university system, close is not good enough. I love the University of Georgia. I learned more during my time in Athens than at any other time in my life. I love being there with my son for home football games. It is where I met my wife. My loyalty to the University is unimpeachable. And, that's why I voted against HB 340.

I think that nothing hurts the University more than a blow to its integrity. HB 340 takes away an important law that serves to protect against blows to UGA's integrity. The ability to keep financial contributions secret creates too much opportunity (and incentive) for mischief.

Such mischief can include donors who seek to influence the university or college on an academic matter. For example, what if a donor wanted to ensure a certain set of courses was taught or certain individuals receive faculty appointments. (Remember Newt at KSU?) Perhaps the donor wants to influence an admissions decision. Or, what if a donor wants to pressure the university into terminating the contract of a university president over his treatment of a popular athletic director? (That example should certainly ring true in some quarters.)

But, I'll accept, for arguments sake, that the greater concerns are raised when the donor wants to influence Regents spending (as opposed to academic) decisions. Right now, the names are discoverable under the Georgia Open Records Act. I have not heard of any big anonymous donor being "outed" as a result. Proponents of the bill concede that point. But, they claim there is a chilling effect created by the GORA. And, I can certainly see their point. So, the question is whether we are willing to trade the likelihood for impropriety for the potential chilling effect on contributions. (Never mind that an individual can avail himself of a community foundation or attorney to shield his identity when making a contribution.)

The law would allow donors to have contributions made by their spouse to be kept secret. If the spouse might trigger the indirect ownership language, another family member could be used as a vehicle. Or, let's say the CEO of a hypothetical large company wants to ensure his company gets a big contract with the university. If the company is large enough, it is unlikely that he owns 25% of it but quite possible that his compensation would be impacted by such a contract. In such a case the exception would not be triggered.

From an enforcement standpoint, who makes the call regarding whether the exception is triggered? It would have to be the donor. What would be the consequences if the donor does not comply with the law? This is not a criminal statute, so how is it enforced? Other questions include what to do about a case where the contribution is made prior to the donor obtaining the ownership interest. Or, perhaps most dangerously a donor could make a contribution and then at some later time a business transaction occurs. Is it the case that the new exception would protect the donor's identity but such protection would be lost once business is transacted? Or does what happened in the past stay in the past? At best, the law is far from clear.

The potential for abuse is not difficult to imagine. That is why a vote against HB 340 was a vote for UGA.

Thanks again for your support and feedback. Please contact me by going through www.davidadelman.com.

This post provides a quick update on the Open Records Act legislation I authored this session:

SB 153, to the best of my knowledge, is the only legislation offered this Session which would enhance the public's ability to find out more about government through the Georgia Open Records Act. This is a bi-partisan bill. I enlisted several well-regarded R Senators to be co-sponsors of the legislation. As a reminder, SB 153 provides that Campus Police Departments at private colleges and universities should be subject to the Open Records Act in the same way it applies to police departments at public colleges and universities. Georgia law gives private campus police departments the same authority as any local government police departments. Officers are Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) certified and investigate crimes and arrest and detain Georgia citizens. Jurisdiction for these police departments extends 1/4 of a mile outside campus boundaries.

It is my hope that the backlash against the many "secrecy bills" offered this Session will propel SB 153 to passage. And, we are getting close. As previously reported, the bill passed the Senate without a single "no" vote. It has now passed the House Judiciary Committee (again without a vote against it). We had several excellent witnesses appear before the House Judiciary Committee at the hearing on Thursday including individuals from the Society of Professional Journalists and the Georgia First Amendment Foundation as well as an attorney who specializes in cases involving crimes on campus and an attorney who represents many of the members of the Georgia Police Chiefs Association. All spoke favorably of the bill. But, perhaps most importantly, the Deputy General Counsel of Emory University was there to say Emory supports the bill. Emory is the largest private university in Georgia. It is the largest employer in DeKalb County. And, it is the largest institution in my state Senate District. It should be no surprise that Emory operates the largest private campus police department in the state. When I first introduced the bill, Emory indicated to me that they were opposed to it. After full consideration, they have come around. Emory should be commended for favoring open government. They have recognized that their campus is like a small city - a place where Georgians work, study, live and play. They have done right by their employees, students and neighbors by supporting this bill. Emory's relatively new President, Dr. Jim Wagner, has once again shown he is a stand up guy.

SB 153 was improved by the good work of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Wendell Willard (R-North Fulton) with the addition of some important language in his committee. And, first term Rep. Ed Lindsey (R-Buckhead) is carrying the bill in the House. We still need to clear some very big hurdles. We must get the bill out of the Rules Committee. And, I am counting on Willard and Lindsey to work the politics. They should be able to effectively emphasize the bi-partisan support this bill has enjoyed from the beginning. Emails to the House Rules Committee Members from the general public would help. Once out of House Rules, the bill almost certainly will pass on the House floor. And, I would think it highly unlikely the Governor would veto the legislation. A potential speed bump would be if the bill were amended with some language unrelated to campus police records. In the committee there was a failed attempt to add language which would require that all Open Records Act requests (not just those relating to campus police departments) must be made in writing. This language is somewhat controversial. It has been subject to quite a bit of negative media commentary and it could be a "poison pill" which would kill SB 153. I sincerely hope there is no effort to attach complicating language to the relatively simple and straightforward SB 153.

Thanks again for your comments. Please let me know what you think by sending emails through the link at www.davidadelman.com.

Much has been written in the mainstream press about SB 84 and various legislation introduced this term relating to open records and open government. Here's a little more about what is going on.

SB 84, introduced by a first term state Senator, would greatly limit the forms of identification that can be used by a Georgia voter at a polling place to obtain a ballot and to vote in an election in Georgia. By way of background, in response to concerns arising from allegations of voter fraud in the 2000 presidential elections Congress passed a federal bill which provides for 17 different documents that can be used to verify voter identification. For now, Georgia's law tracks the federal legislation. That legislation was supported by President George W. Bush and all of Georgia's Republican members of Congress. The legislation provided that states could further limit the types of identification they would accept. After all, states are charged with running elections. But Georgia's bill goes much further. It limits acceptable identification to:
(1) A valid Georgia driver's license;
(2) A valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification, provided that such identification card contains a photograph of the elector;
(3) A valid United States passport;
(4) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state; or
(5) A valid United States military identification card.

The author of the bill claims the purpose of the legislation was to cut down on voter fraud in Georgia. But, when questioned on the Senate floor, he could point to not a single case of voter fraud. In the end, this bill seems designed to make it harder to vote. And, it would seem to work a particular hardship on minorities, the elderly, recent immigrants and students. It escapes me why Georgia would need to be more restrictive than suggested by the R Congress and George W. Bush. The bill seems sure to pass. But, it may run into problems when it comes to getting approval under the Voting Rights Act by the Department of Justice and the federal courts. There is simply no good rationale for eliminating some of the types of identification allowed by federal law such as a student ID, a social security card or a birth certificate. The bill is moving on strictly partisan support (Rs are for it and Ds are against it.) I voted against this bill and will work to stop it from becoming law. This bill demonstrates just how out of touch some of the proposals brought forward this Session are with ordinary people who may not have a valid passport or even a valid driver's license. You won't find many of those people voting in the wealthier precincts in our state. Maybe that is why they are being discouraged from voting.

We should be looking for ways to make it easier to vote -- not more difficult.

Open Government

Three bills have been introduced that are a serious threat to open government in Georgia. SB 5 died after intense pressure from the media. Frankly, the media was focused on property rights issues at the time, but the secrecy provisions of that bill were every bit as dangerous. HB 218, which would allow development authorites and the state economic development agency to escape open records requests, is supported by Gov. Perdue. It passed the House, but thankfully has run into difficulty in the Senate. It was brought to the floor, but as questions started coming during floor debate, it lost support (even among the Rs and even though it had the strong backing of the R Senate leadership). HB 340 (also backed by the Gov.) would shield information relating to contributions to University System entitites. This one also passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. All three are lousy bills. Open government may not be convenient but it is the best protection we have from government abuse. These are the types of bad bills that transcend political party. Loyal Ds hate them. Loyal Rs hate them. Swing voters hate them.

I think they are all potential political cyanide pills and members of the Senate support these measures at great political risk.

I authored SB 153 relating to campus police departments at private colleges and universities (see my previous post for details) which enjoys bi-partisan support. It passed the Senate without objection. I will be working over the remainder of the term to pass this bill. As far as I know, SB 153 is the only bill introduced this year which would further open government. All others would limit disclosure.

Thanks again for visiting www.davidadelman.com and letting me know your thoughts.

This post provides a brief update on the progress of four pieces of legislation I authored this year.

SB 129 which prohibits solicitation (selling servies or goods or distributing commercial literature) on trains, buses or in rail stations passed the Senate and is already out of the House Transportation Committee. (For legislation authored by a Democrat, this is the fast track.) It is now in House Rules and may very well come to the House floor for a vote in the next week or so. This bill has a very good chance of passing this year.

SB 91 which would provide equipment to assist the visually impaired passed the Senate (without a vote against) and is awaiting assignment to a committee in the House. I am optimistic we can pass this bill this year.

SB 153 which would require certain police records and crime reports of incidents which happen on private college and university campuses passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is now in Senate Rules. I hope to get this legislation to the Senate floor in the next two weeks and try to move it through the House in the closing days of the Session.

SB 162 which would give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on cyberpredators appears to be held up for political reasons. This bill is part of the Lt. Gov's legislative agenda. On Thursday, I was very close to successfully amending the Gov's so-called anti-spam bill with the key provisions of SB 162 but the author of that bill withdrew his support of my amendment at the last minute as a result of some confusing messages the Gov's office claims to have received from the State Law Department. It certainly would not surprise me if the Law Department was confused about the amendment. They do not seem to be reading bills (or amendments) very closely this year.

Finally, I have received many kind emails and messages about the recently issued opinion from the AG regarding PDK airport. Last July, I asked the AG to investigate DeKalb County's unwillingness to respond to Open Records Act requests for information relating to the operations at PDK airport. In late February, the AG finally responded with an "Unofficial Opinion" in which he agreed with my legal conclusion that absent a federal statute or regulation prohibiting disclosure, the County could not rely on the federal law exemption to the Georgia Open Records Act to deny the citizen requests for information. The law was clear. Frankly, I'm not sure what took the AG's office so long to respond. In any case, DeKalb County now has no defense left and should stop spending taxpayer money on their stubborn defense and refusal to turn over the information. More importantly, the law is now clear and DeKalb County needs to cooperate with the neighbors near PDK airport on future requests.

As always, please visit my website at davidadelman.com and email your comments to me at vote@davidadelman.com.

On Friday, the Senate took up SB 140 which would make some far-reaching changes to the way Georgia's PeachCare for Kids program operates. As a reminder, PeachCare for Kids is Georgia's State Children's Healthcare Program. I think every state has such a program. In shorthand, it is Medicaid for kids. The federal government matches every $30 spent by the state with $70 in federal funding for this program. The 30/70 match is the best leverage any state program enjoys. (The Medicaid program for adults receives a 40/60 match.) The federal regulations require that for matching funds, programs like PeachCare must cover children whose family earns less than 180 percent of the federal poverty level. Georgia's does even better by covering kids whose families earn less than 235 percent of the federal poverty level. In fact, our plan has been praised nationally for its compassionate broad coverage.

PeachCare and the Hope Scholarship are about the only major programs for which our state receives positive national recognition. With that in mind, SB 140 set out to allow the Georgia Department of Community Health to change the standards for qualifying for the program. This would be a very severe delegation of authority by the General Assembly. In plain talk, it would have allowed the Gov. and legislative leaders to hide behind a decision made by the Department rather than take responsibility for cutting PeachCare themselves. I authored a Floor Amendment which struck the delegation language from the bill. Upon reading my amendment, the author moved the bill to the foot of the calendar and went about the business of drafting language which was virtually identical to mine. They should have had a heads up when I was the only member of the Health and Human Services Committee to vote against HB 140 in committee. The author then introduced an amendment, conceded that it did the same thing as my amendment, and agreed with my position. SB 140 passed easily as amended. At a minimum, this demonstrates why bills should not be engrossed and the fact that Ds and Rs can work together on the floor.

Please let me know your feedback by visiting www.davidadelman.com.