Clackamas Republican unveils sweeping set of public records reforms

SALEM -- Adding to a pile of ethics proposals spurred by Gov. John Kitzhaber's resignation, a vocal Clackamas County lawmaker has introduced sweeping public records legislation meant to turn some of that heightened scrutiny onto the Oregon Legislature.

House Bill 3505, introduced this month by Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, would undo decades of policy by ditching an exemption that shields legislators from the state's public records law during a legislative session. That exemption has roots in Oregon's constitution, with archaic language meant to protect lawmakers from harassment that could keep them from meeting and doing business.

The bill also would force lawmakers to hold onto certain records longer -- three years for vital emails instead of one year. And it takes on the complications of new technology -- such as text messages, Twitter and Google's chat service -- by giving lawmakers 30 days to move over to state servers any public documents held on personal accounts or devices.

Besides tightening rules for the legislative branch, the bill would impose dramatic statewide changes. State agencies and local governments would see their ability to charge exorbitant fees for records sharply curtailed. Agencies also would have to answer requests within seven business days and then provide regular updates.

"It changes how we do business," said Parrish, already pushing a dozen other ethics and transparency bills this session that target the governor's office, campaign finance and political redistricting. "We should all be OK with that. These bills are not partisan."

How transparent is the Legislature?

Compared with other public officials,

in when, how and whether to retain and release public records.

But even in the thinning haze of the Kitzhaber scandal, it's not clear she'll get her way. Though Parrish has so far won three sponsors -- Reps. Knute Buehler, R-Bend; John Davis, R-Wilsonville; and Jodi Hack, R-Salem -- HB 3505 hasn't found much purchase among Democratic leaders.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, acknowledged that trust in government has been strained by the scandal and that she's familiar with the arguments around ending the in-session exemption. But she also told The Oregonian/OregonLive that she hadn't yet read Parrish's latest bill.

"She's the only one," Kotek said of Parrish, "who has a lot of interest in some of these bills."

Public records reform has historically been a difficult subject to tackle. A 2011 attempt by then-Attorney General John Kroger to tackle similar statewide issues around fees and response times ran aground amid a blitz of objections. And that was without adding a fight over legislative rules.

Gov. Kate Brown has also proposed several ethics reforms, and bills could be introduced as soon as this week.

"Governor Brown supports informed decision making and is pleased that there are so many legislators interested in these important issues," spokeswoman Melissa Navas said in a statement. "Her ethics package is in the final stages of drafting and will be introduced shortly."

But on public records -- a sore subject amid accusations that her predecessor's office dragged its feet and tried deleting public records -- Brown has asked only for a review that would lead to legislation as soon as next year.

Poll results

Three-quarters of readers think legislators should be subject to the same public-records laws as other officials, according to an informal OregonLive poll last week.

Parrish previously said she began working on HB 3505 before The Oregonian/OregonLive reported this month precisely how much latitude legislators have when it comes to managing public records. In essence, lawmakers, unlike other state officials, are free to choose which records they delete or disclose with little oversight.

But Parrish said HB 3505's current version, unveiled March 25, was tweaked in part to reflect conversations with a reporter about records loopholes, primarily the language that would force lawmakers to move documents held on private accounts and devices.

Lawmakers and staffers increasingly conduct business via text, personal email, instant message and social media -- a practice their own attorney called "common" during a training session in January.

That said, she has acknowledged that her bill won't address one of the more eyebrow-raising rules around texts and chat logs. They'll still be considered "ephemeral" communications, like phone calls or conversations, which means they can be immediately deleted, even if they're public records.

"The ephemeral stuff is going to be harder to get at," Parrish said.

Ideally, she said, the Legislature would match the executive branch by storing its emails and records on a publicly searchable database outside lawmakers' direct control. She's planning to meet with the state's archivist this week. Of course, that would also cost money -- which Parrish argues her colleagues ought to find.

"Let's get it out there and let the public decide what's important," she said. "I don't think you can put a price tag on it."

-- Denis C. Theriault

503-221-8430; @TheriaultPDX

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.