New laws to open lawmakers and the governor’s office to public information requests are being considered by the Legislature, with supporters remaining optimistic they can make bump Michigan from its spot as the least transparent state in the nation.
Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Waucedah Township, and Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, introduced two new bills that would open the offices of the governor and lawmakers to the Freedom of Information Act, often referred to as FOIA. State agencies and local governmental bodies are already subject to FOIA requests, but Michigan remains the only state to exempt the governor’s office from requests.
The duo said that FOIA remains a powerful tool for journalists, watchdog groups and everyday Michigan residents looking to find more information about their government.
“We’ve all endured over the last several years here from this legislature, ethical questions at best and criminal activity at worst that have made headlines across our state,” Moss said. “Those actions from bad actors were only made possible by the dark areas in our law in which they could exist — chiefly among them that legislative records in Michigan never have to be made public.”
Moss emphasized the broad spectrum of organizations that have come together to support these reforms, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and that Michigan Press Association.
McBroom said that while the legislation may not be perfect, “our successors one way or the other will have the time in the future to repair and improve and reform things as we see how parts work and parts don’t.”
Moss said the package would expand FOIA “with reasonable exemptions,” some of which were discussed as a sticking point for supporters of the legislation. McBroom said that the legislation contained dozens of exemptions for the governor’s office in its initial form but was significantly trimmed down through negotiations.
Currently exempted communications for the governor’s office include records relating to budget recommendations, pardons or commutations, messages to the Legislature, the governor’s residence, information that could jeopardize their safety and records from the office that are created or used for less than 30 days.
The proposal also exempts discussions of appointments or removals made by the governor until that individual has been appointed or removed and communications involving pending litigation. The requirements would not apply retroactively to documents produced before the law takes effect.
The legislation currently contains a fairly broad exemption for constituent communications which would apply to most residents of the state, with the exception of state employees and lobbyists.
The bill defines a constituent as “an individual who resides in this state and who contacts the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor for assistance in personally obtaining government services, to express a personal opinion, or for redress of personal grievances.”
Several exemptions would apply to the Legislature, including personal notes of lawmakers and records pertaining to legislative investigations, pending litigation, documents held by each chamber’s caucuses and constituent communications.
For lawmakers, a constituent means an individual registered to vote in their district, a district resident who is not registered to vote, or a person who mistook a lawmaker for their own district’s legislator.
The legislation retains exemptions currently found in Michigan’s FOIA statute, including “information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.”
Exemptions for constituent communications drew some ire from supporters of the legislation, including Merissa Kovach, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan.
“We are concerned that that blanket exemption for all constituent communications is lacking there and doesn’t strike exactly the best balance that it could,” she said.
Lawmakers responded with some skepticism, saying they wanted to ensure that possibly sensitive information from constituents should be protected. Many individuals reach out to their legislators once they’ve exhausted other options and may be in an emotionally fragile state, said Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak.
