Editorial: Open records

From The Durango Herald:  The Colorado Open Records Act is based on the premise that public documents – that is, those created by public bodies for their official business – are, by and large, available for public inspection. There is a lengthy and justifiable list of exceptions to that premise, of course, which includes personnel files, medical and mental-health data, trade secrets and library records, among many others, but the presumption of openness rules the day. The underlying notion that the public has a right to see most public documents is solid in Colorado, and the state Supreme Court recently bolstered that foundation with its ruling that those who successfully sue to access public records are entitled to recover attorneys fees. It was a sound decision.

The ruling, which upheld an appeals court reversal of a lower court’s finding, means that the Colorado Republican Party can collect attorney’s fees for its successful efforts to gain access to public surveys that several Democratic state legislators had refused to surrender when asked. A lower court had found that because the Colorado Open Records Act did not require lawmakers to hand over the whole list of documents the Republican Party had requested, the party had not fully prevailed and therefore was not entitled to legal fees. The appeals court and the Colorado Supreme Court found otherwise, affirming the Open Records Act’s intent, as well as underscoring statutory commitment to supporting access to public documents. In short, plaintiffs are entitled to have covered the costs of insisting on access to whatever documents a court determines to be public.

Visit The Durango Herald for more.

Subscribe to Our Blog

Loading