The Sunshine Coalition Web Page

Editorials

Sample Editorial by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Permission to use granted.)
Brechner Center Director
Bradford County Telegraph
Bradenton Herald
Charlotte Herald
Daytona Beach News-Journal
Florida Times-Union
Gainesville Sun
Lakeland Ledger
Miami Herald
Naples Daily News
Orlando Sentinel
Osceola News-Gazette
Palm Beach Post :edit 1
Palm Beach Post :edit 2
St. Augustine Record
St. Petersburg Times
Sun-Sentinel
Venice Gondolier
A Student's Perspective

Amendment Four: Keep Sun Shining

South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper
On Nov. 5, Floridians should vote to make it harder for state lawmakers to impose clouds of secrecy to block out "Government in the Sunshine," which requires government records and meetings to be open to the public.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board encourages voters to say yes to proposed state constitutional Amendment No. 4. That amendment requires a "super-majority" vote of two-thirds of the Legislature to approve any future exemptions to the open records law. Now, a simple majority is needed. A yes vote is worthwhile, even if it won't solve the biggest problem. That is lawmakers who steamroll through exemptions without legal justification, proper evaluation of pros and cons or adequate debate. Of 10 exemptions passed this year, two won less than a two-thirds vote and would have failed if the amendment had been in effect. Governmental openness is for everyone, not just a few.

Sick people use open records to find out if a doctor has been sued for malpractice or filed reports saying a patient was killed or injured due to error. Private investigators use public records to track down deadbeat parents and find stolen property. People wanting to find a good nursing home for an aging parents use open records to see which facilities have good inspection reports. Business owners use open records to see if potential employees have been convicted of crimes, sued for wrongdoing in civil courts or disciplined for professional misconduct. People wanting to buy or sell a home use open records to check out appraised values of similar properties, utility costs, taxes, crime rates in the neighborhood and school attendance zones. Government watchdogs and investigative reporters use open records to discover dubious government actions and track abuse of tax dollars. The Sun-Sentinel used public records this summer to track down several children missing from Florida's Department of Children & Families. And everyone can use open records and open meetings to become better-informed citizens. Florida's 1968 Sunshine Law and 1992 Sunshine Amendment provide powerful tools to permit public oversight and accountability of government and deter official wrongdoing. But over the years, lawmakers have enacted more than 850 exemptions to open government rules. And when the Legislature meets again next March, many lawmakers will again be tempted to add more unjustified exemptions to the open records laws. The principle should be stated over and over, and given stronger constitutional protection: The public's business should be done publicly.

Vote "Yes" on Amendment Four and Protect Open Government
By Sandra Chance
Director, Brechner Center for Freedom of Information

Access to public information is a basic right in Florida. Our constitution guarantees us the right to attend public meetings and see public records.

Florida voters passed the Public Records and Meetings Constitutional Amendment by a landslide in 1992. They understood the importance of this Amendment, which guarantees us the right to attend public meetings and see public records so we can make the best decisions for ourselves, our families and our communities.

The voters understood that legislators would be susceptible to special interest groups to keep more information secret. The constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for them to pass new exemptions to the law.

On Nov. 5, another constitutional amendment to promote open government will be on the ballot. This amendment doesn't really add a new amendment to our constitution. It simply strengthens the existing Public Records and Meetings Constitutional Amendment.

The "Protect Open Government" Amendment is the fourth amendment on the ballot and is sometimes referred to as Amendment Four. This amendment will make it harder to restrict the public's constitutional right of access by requiring that exemptions to the open records policy be passed by two-thirds vote of each chamber. The joint legislative resolution, sponsored by Sen. Jack Latvala and Rep. John Carassas, passed the Senate unanimously with only four dissenters in the House.

It seems even the members of the Legislature realized how quickly legislators were passing new exemptions during the past few years, weakening one of the country's strongest open government laws. Last year, 136 bills were introduced which would have restricted our right to know about our government's activities. Many of these proposals were hastily considered, rarely debated and passed with blinding speed. While most of them didn't pass both Chambers this legislative term, they'll be back next session.

In a state that has always taken great pride in its century-old tradition of open government, one legislator even suggested removing the word "Sunshine" from our signs on the state's borders. The signs would then read, "Welcome to the State."

If it weren't true, it might be funny. That's why is so important for voters to understand this amendment and why they should vote for it in November. Not much has been written about the amendment in the state's newspapers.

In fact, one of the state's leading newspapers reviewed the ballot amendments and completely overlooked Amendment Four. It ran a correction a week later endorsing the amendment, calling it an easy call.

This past summer, the state's media groups, including the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors, the Florida Press Association, the Florida Press Club, the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, the Florida First Amendment Foundation, and representatives from the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Florida Bar Media Law Committee, gathered at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg to explore the creation of a coalition. The Sunshine Coalition's primary mission will be to educate the public about the importance of access to information.

This group decided to focus on Amendment Four as its first project. The Brechner Center is coordinating these efforts. We hope you'll support us by covering the Amendment, writing editorials endorsing it and encouraging your readers to support this important referendum on open government.

The Coalition is also working on a web page, more public service ads, sample editorials, information about the Amendment and talking points for editors who are speaking to civic groups. The web site's address will be: www.sunshinecoalititon.info and should be launched the first part of October. If you'd like more information about the Coalition, please call the Brechner Center.

In the words of one of Amendment Four's sponsors: "An open government is the best government."

Write an editorial, give a speech, run a public service ad, explain the amendment to your friends and neighbors, challenge candidates to support open government.

The proposed amendment gives us a wonderful opportunity to remind many of our legislators that the citizens of Florida cherish their Sunshine Laws and understand that an open government is the best government.

Sandra Chance is the director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, an associate professor of media law in the College of Journalism and Communications and coordinator of the new Sunshine Coalition.

Editorial: Voters should not neglect amendment decisions
By Buster Rahn, Editorial Writer

Monday, 10/14/2002 © Bradford County Telegraph
Amendments four through seven. This article concerning the 11 proposed amendments, which will appear on the general election ballot Nov. 5, is the second of four, setting forth an explanation of the proposals and some views and recommendations. Proposal Number 4: Laws providing public records of meetings and exemptions; two-thirds vote required.

A constitutional amendment to protect the "Florida Government in the Sunshine" law from the legislature's proclivity to destroy the law by chipping away specific items concerning public meetings and public records. The proposal, if approved, requires a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority of legislators, to exempt an item from the public forum. Vote "yes" and tell Tallahassee to cease and desist from crippling the Florida Sunshine Law.

This is one of the more important items on the ballot this year. It is a sad commentary on the Florida legislature that voters have to approve an amendment to protect the "Government in the Sunshine" law from raids by elected officials.

Proposal Number 5: Review of exemptions and exclusions from the tax on sales, use and other transactions.

Proposes to amend the State Constitution to create a joint legislative committee to conduct a review of exemptions from the tax on sales, use and other transactions. Senators and representatives are elected to access taxes in an amount sufficient to fund government activities. It isn't a pleasant duty, so the legislature is making an "end-run" by appointing a committee to do the job they were elected to do. Committee appointments should be made by legislative leaders and do not belong in the Constitution.

Vote "no" and tell legislators to face up to their responsibilities.

Proposal Number 6: Protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke by prohibiting workplace smoking.

This proposed amendment is another attempt to put a law in the Constitution that should be passed by the legislature, providing such a law is needed. The Constitution should be reserved for those statutes that are timeless in establishing broad outlines of statewide policy or for providing guidance for public officials. While smoking in the workplace is serious and needs to be addressed, it fails the test for being included in the Constitution, and should be addressed in other arenas. Vote "no."

Proposal Number 7: Exemption for construction of living quarters for parents or grandparents.

Proposes an amendment to the State Constitution to allow counties to exempt from taxation an increase in the assessed value of homestead property resulting from constructing living quarters for a parent or grandparent - of the property owner or the property owner's spouse - who is 62 years old or older. Limits the amount of such exemptions. This is a "feel-good" amendment for allowing people to improve their property and escape an increase in assessed value of homestead property, with some limitations. This amendment isn't needed for two reasons:
* Today's parents and grandparents are the best off financially of any generation ever known
* The addition of a single room will increase taxes only marginally.

If the construction costs thousands of dollars, then obviously the owners are financially able to pay taxes on an addition to their home - which will be returned to them or their heirs sometime in the future. If the legislature wants to make exceptions for elderly people, let it be handled through local zoning boards with proper safeguards. A blanket exemption is not required.

Vote "no." Every voter should consider carefully the ramifications of the proposed amendments and vote accordingly. Some amendments are clearly the responsibility of the legislature, and law-makers are shirking their duties by going the amendment route rather than standing up and being counted. Look for comments on proposals number eight and nine in subsequent issues of the Telegraph.

Internet prompts a closer look at open access laws

(Sunday, 10/13/2002 © Bradenton Herald)
CINCINNATI - Jim Moehring knows firsthand the pros and cons of making public court records available online.

A general manager at the city's hockey arena, Moehring has used the Hamilton County court's Web site to check out potential hires. He's even turned away a few because of what he found.

But someone used the site to pull Moehring's Social Security number and other details from a 1996 traffic ticket, opening seven credit cards in his name and charging $11,000.

"It was absolutely terrifying," Moehring said. "I got smoked in a bad way. The information is way too accessible." That information is no different from what is found in public documents filed away, largely gathering dust, in courthouses around the country.

Before the Internet, though, public records were essentially private because of their obscurity. Now governments are examining what information should be made public, or whether different rules should apply to electronic documents. Since the late 1990s, courts have posted various records online to manage cases more efficiently and provide easier access. But complaints soon followed. Crime victims, jurors and witnesses fear assailants can easily identify and find them. Others worry about identity theft. Reformed criminals want their pasts hidden, not publicized. Divorcees grumble that their neighbors now know their business.

Though officials knew records would be made more available, "there was an underestimation of the impact that was going to have on the individuals whose documents now were online," said John Bessey, a Franklin County judge and chairman of the Ohio Supreme Court's technology committee.

Later this month, a coalition that includes the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Va., is to recommend guidelines for states drafting online policies. The federal court system decided last year that documents in civil and bankruptcy cases - but not criminal cases - should be available electronically without personal information, such as Social Security numbers, birth dates and names of minors.

The Florida Supreme Court, meanwhile, is considering a moratorium on online court records while lawmakers review a 2000 Florida law that requires courts to post by 2006 scanned images of all official records, including property documents and birth certificates. Beth Allman, a spokeswoman with the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptroller, said some of the 30 courts already posting the images also made civil and criminal case files available online. "The lawmakers then said, 'Wait, is this what we really meant?' " Allman said.

Other states, including Ohio, New York, Arizona and Wisconsin, have task forces studying the issue. Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said any public information that is kept in a file cabinet should be available online. That's why states may have to consider revamping open records laws now that court records have become "digital dossiers" of people's lives, said Chris Hoofnagle, legislative counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "The answer isn't simply turn off the Web sites," Hoofnagle said. "The answer is to determine exactly what should be appearing in public records no matter how they are kept, paper or electronic."

Some fear lawmakers might use the Internet as an excuse to deny the public access to information offline. "I'm deeply suspicious of anyone tinkering with open records laws, because they're usually doing it for a specific, self-serving reason," said Timothy Smith, director for the Ohio Center for Privacy and The First Amendment at Kent State University.

The better solution, he said, would be to limit the amount of personal information that many public documents require. So far, the only bills introduced in state legislatures concern blacking out certain information, such as Social Security and credit card numbers, before posting documents online, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Jim Cissell, clerk of the Hamilton County court, said he was following Ohio's open records law when he started posting records online in 1999. The site is considered as among the most comprehensive in the nation.

See: www.courtclerk.org
Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://www.epic.org
National Center for State Courts: http://www.ncsconline.org

Amendment 4 will help guarantee sunshine in Florida

©Charlotte Herald
Ten years ago, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution that guaranteed us the right of open government. The foundation of that amendment, referred to as the Sunshine Law, can be fortified if voters pass Amendment 4 on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The proposed Sunshine-in-government amendment is a resolution drafted by Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Palm Harbor, and Rep. John Carassas, R-Largo. It would require any exemptions from public records of public meetings requirements be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.

While we frown on burdening our constitution with amendments, this resolution is important to the rights of private citizens -- and the media -- to have access to knowledge on how government works, how it affects us and who is responsible. The events of 9/11 sparked an avalanche of bills and proposals to limit access to documents and meetings that should be public. In 2002 alone, legislators considered more than 60 new laws -- 10 of which passed.

In all, there were 16 new exemptions to the Sunshine Law that were approved in 2002. That brought the total of exemptions to more than 850. That is too many. Some of those exemptions would have prevented state and local government from putting military discharges, death certificates on the Internet.

They would have allowed defense contractors, who get public subsidies for creating jobs and paying certain wages, to keep secret information on whether they upheld their end of the deal. Legislators attempted to pass laws that would allow elected officials to meet privately to discuss how to spend our tax money; hide information on doctors' mistakes; and would empower police to arrest people and not reveal their names for three weeks or longer.

The Florida Board of Education even wanted to close its meetings -- a move that would allow it to discuss tuition costs, salaries and hirings in private.

Without sunshine in our state laws, county commissioners would be able to meet and discuss the hiring and firing of administrators and managers. Deals could be made and influence peddled.

Legislators should know by now that keeping secrets from the public is not a good practice and a sure way to lose credibility. Passage of Amendment 4 will strengthen that message.

Proposal would protect access

Tuesday, October 8, 2002
© Daytona Beach News-Journal
In the arena of constitutional amendments confronting voters on the ballot, Amendment 4 is a slam dunk.

If voters approve it on Nov. 5, legislators will find it harder to shut the public out of government meetings and lock the file cabinets on government records. The amendment would require two-thirds of the members of the Legislature to approve an exemption to Florida's Sunshine and open records laws, instead of the simple majority needed now.

If Amendment 4 did only one thing -- to remind lawmakers that Floridians insist on watching what their government is doing -- that would be enough. But it does much more. The amendment stands as a check to the rampant disregard legislators have shown for the original constitutional amendment guaranteeing the public access to government meetings and records. Four out of five voters approved it in 1992.

No matter. In the 10 years since, legislators have approved more than 850 different occasions when government and its assorted boards and employees can keep citizens from attending meetings or viewing records. That's an insult.

This year alone, lawmakers prevented state and local governments from putting public records like military discharges and death certificates on the Internet. They classified as secret the architectural plans of public buildings. They permitted defense contractors receiving public subsidies to create jobs to hide whether they upheld their end of the deal.

The number of incidences of legislators deciding the public doesn't have the right to watch government grows every year. This amendment can't stop that, but it can curtail it. The practical side to a yes vote on this amendment is to make it harder for law makers to shut off Floridians' ability to see their government in action. Instead of requiring 80 legislators to approve an exemption to the Sunshine and open records laws, it would take 107.

The philosophical side to voting for this amendment is that is puts lawmakers on notice that voters don't like it when elected officials dictatorially decide what public records and meetings they ought to have access to. The original constitutional amendment requires lawmakers to presume that all government actions are open to public view unless an overriding public good can be accomplished by closing them. Most of the more than 850 exceptions lawmakers have passed don't meet that standard.

Florida is famous for being the "Sunshine" state. If voters want to keep it that way, they should pass Amendment 4. Lawmakers will get the message -- and we're not talking about the weather.

Proposal would strengthen public records law

©Florida Times-Union
When he was a city attorney in Clearwater, John Carassas always assumed the Florida Sunshine Law -- the state's open records code -- was treated with great respect by lawmakers in Tallahassee.

As a lawyer who advised the city on open records laws, he never thought legislators would create exemptions to the Sunshine Law without a strenuous debate and great forethought.

Also appearing on the ballot Other amendments that will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot:

Amendment 1: Puts the death penalty into the state constitution and guarantees that legal problems with the method of execution will not overturn a killer's death sentence. Narrows the state protection against "cruel or unusual" punishment to match the U.S. Constitution protection against "cruel and unusual" punishments.That covers all punishments -- not just the death penalty. In the area of capital punishment it could have the impact of lowering the minimum age for executions in Florida from 17 to 16.

Amendment 2: Requires that a "probable financial impact" statement accompany proposed constitutional amendments that are put on the ballot by citizen petition.

Amendment 3: Authorizes amendments or revisions to the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter.

Amendment 7: Gives homeowners building living quarters for parents or grandparents age 62 or older a property tax break. Limits the amount of such exemption to the increase in assessed value resulting from such construction or 20 percent of the total assessed value of the property as improved, whichever is less.

Amendment 10: Protects pregnant pigs from being confined in small cages or tethered so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely. For more information on those amendments, go to jacksonville.com, keyword: constitutional amendments. But when Carassas was elected to the state House in 2000, he saw that wasn't the case.

Particularly after the Sept. 11 tragedy and subsequent terrorism fears, Carassas saw the Legislature passing numerous exemptions to Florida's nationally recognized public records law with little debate or consideration. In response, Carassas proposed a constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for lawmakers to block public access to state records and meetings.

The proposed amendment, No. 4 of 10 proposed constitutional amendments on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot, would require that any new public records exemption be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of each chamber of the Legislature. Changes to the Sunshine Law now require a majority vote.

"I'm hoping this will raise the bar for any new exemptions," Carassas said. The amendment is opposed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which said the stronger vote requirement will sap power from the elected Legislature.

The amendment could make it easier for thieves to steal the identity of Florida residents, chamber attorney Autumn B. Thomson said. The amendment is supported by the Florida First Amendment Foundation, which advocates open government.

The foundation director, lawyer Barbara Petersen, is frequently called upon by lawmakers to advise them when they seek to close public access to official records. "We can all agree on some exemptions," Petersen said. "But they [proposed exemptions] were not getting the kind of consideration that they should." After the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers sought to close many public records to prevent potential terrorists from obtaining identification or access to state plans that could aid them in a terrorist act. Florida's Sunshine Law also gained attention after the 2001 death of auto racer Dale Earnhardt led some media to seek photos of his autopsy.

Lawmakers acted quickly to exempt autopsy pictures from the public records law. If the two-thirds majority requirement had been in place during the 2002 legislative session, Petersen said it would have blocked two exemptions from becoming law: one that closed public access to Department of Insurance work papers and another that blocked access to records showing how many jobs a company created and what wages it paid to qualify for a tax refund incentive.

If passed, the constitutional amendment would require a positive vote by 27 members instead of 21 in the 40-member Senate on a public records exemption. In the 120-member House, it would mean 80 members instead of 61 would have to vote in favor of an exemption. Both chambers must pass a measure and the governor must sign it before it becomes law.

For the Sunshine

Thursday, 10/17/2002, © Gainesville Sun
Florida has a long and honorable tradition of open government. Our passion for government in the "Sunshine" is such that we Floridians have made it a constitutional mandate that public meetings be open and public records be available for inspection.

But Florida's Sunshine Law has for a long time been suffering the legislative version of the "death of a thousand cuts." Over the years, lawmakers have carved hundreds of exemptions into the public records and open meetings laws. On average, 60 to 70 new exemptions are proposed each legislative session, and seven to 10 new exemptions are passed into law.

While many of the exemptions are legitimate attempts to balance privacy or security considerations against the public's right to know, others have been enacted simply because a special interest group has enough clout to get a secrecy bill passed.

This year, more than 150 exemptions were proposed in a gross overreaction to the attacks of 911. Ultimately, 15 of those exemptions made it into law. In addition, the Florida Senate took the extraordinary step of changing its rules so it could meet in secret if leaders deemed that necessary.

Amendment 4 on the general election ballot would raise the bar and make it somewhat more difficult to carve new holes into Florida's Sunshine laws. It would require the Legislature to approve new exemptions by a two-thirds vote rather than by a simple majority. As a practical matter, it may not significantly slow the passage of new exemptions, because most are passed with only few dissenting votes. But if nothing else, passage of Amendment 4 will send a strong message to our elected representative that we Floridians are serious about open government and that we want our lawmakers to take their stewardship of our Government in the Sunshine equally seriously.

Send the Florida Legislature a Sunshine message: Vote yes on Amendment 4.

Vote `Yes' On Amendment 4

© Lakeland Ledger
The last few sessions of the Florida Legislature haven't been good ones for the cause of open government. Dozens of bills have been introduced -- several debated seriously, and some enacted into law -- that have closed some public records and meetings that previously were open to public inspection.

Under a constitutional amendment adopted a decade ago, the Legislature has the right to close public records and meetings only if there is a demonstrated "public necessity" for doing so. The amendment was enacted to strengthen Florida's commitment to open government, which earlier had been established by laws dating back to 1909. To a degree, the 1992 amendment worked. Whereas statutory exemptions could have been enacted via amendments to obscure bills and without the knowledge of most members of the Legislature, the amendment required that any new exemptions be approved by separate bills relating only to those exemptions.

This eliminated much of the surprise element, since exemptions not in compliance could be challenged in court. Still, what once was a trickle of exemption bills swelled to a torrent in the past few legislative sessions. While most of the bills didn't pass, they required a great deal of attention by watchdog organizations such as the Florida First Amendment Foundation to make certain that nothing untoward slipped through without adequate notice.

To its credit, the Legislature recognized the problem in the 2002 session and voted to place an amendment on the Nov. 5 ballot that provides an additional safeguard. Amendment 4 would require that any public records or meetings exemption be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house instead of a simple majority. That safeguard won't stop a fastmoving locomotive like the Dale Earnhardt bill that passed the Legislature overwhelmingly after the popular race car driver's death in 2001. The bill blocked the release -- or even the private inspection -- of autopsy photos to unauthorized people, even for good reason.

But it would be an improvement over the existing system. The Ledger recommends a "Yes" vote on Amendment 4.

Vote Yes on Constitution Amendment No. 4

© Miami Herald
There's no question that open government has been good for the people of Florida. To keep it that way, voters should approve this amendment. It would make it more difficult for legislators to conduct public business out of the public eye.

Florida has some of the nation's best laws protecting public access to government records and meetings -- including a constitutional provision approved by 83 percent of the voters 10 years ago. Thanks to these ''Government in the Sunshine'' laws, the public has learned, among other things, about lousy land deals by Miami-Dade Public Schools, foster children questionably treated with psychotropic drugs, even absentee-vote fraud in Miami elections.

It's not that we don't trust our public servants. But secrecy does breed contempt for the public interest. Florida Senate President W.D. Childers, for example, recently was convicted of two Sunshine Law violations. These charges, among others, were related to an alleged scheme to fix an Escambia County Commission vote on a real-estate deal. Of course, the deal involved the discussion in private of public business.

Unfortunately, the Legislature has become increasingly eager to carve out exceptions to open government laws. Already there are some 850 exemptions to both Sunshine and public-records laws. This year alone, legislators proposed more than 60 new exemptions.
Some exemptions are legitimate. Social Security numbers shouldn't be accessible to anyone who asks. But some calls to secrecy simply aim to protect private interests and public officials from embarrassing scrutiny -- or worse. Proposals this year would have barred from public scrutiny reports on extraordinary medical mistakes and would have allowed certain contracts to be negotiated in secret. These were defeated.

But legislators approved other doozys. One permits insurance regulators to seal work papers and ''other information'' -- which could mean anything -- related to investigations of insurers. Another allows defense contractors and other businesses who get tax breaks to keep the public from knowing whether they actually delivered the new jobs and wage levels promised.

These two exemptions would not have passed had Amendment No. 4 been in effect. It would require a two-thirds vote, instead of the current simple majority. An exemption from our constitutional right to open government should pass a higher standard.

Therefore, on Amendment No. 4, The Herald recommends a YES vote.

Election 2002: Amendment 4 — Public records exemptions harder to come by

© Naples Daily News
TALLAHASSEE — Following a flurry of successful attempts to carve out exemptions to Florida's public records law, voters in November will determine whether to make it more difficult for lawmakers to take information out of the public eye.

If adopted, Amendment 4 would require a two-thirds vote in both state legislative chambers to enact exemptions to Florida's Sunshine Law, one of the most sweeping open records and meetings laws in the nation. As it stands, lawmakers can enact exemption on a simple majority vote.
First Amendment advocates say the proposed constitutional amendment will not have a dramatic effect on the number of exemptions granted, because most pass by overwhelming majorities. But, they argue, the measure would solidify the concept that Floridians expect government to conduct business in the open.
Meanwhile critics, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, say the amendment is inappropriate and unnecessary. Further, questions of what should be public should be left up to lawmakers to decide and not etched in the state's most fundamental document.

"I don't think there's a problem with Florida's public records law that needs to be fixed with a constitutional amendment," said Sen. Burt Saunders, R-Naples.
During the legislative sessions following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, lawmakers proposed no less than 150 exemptions to Florida's relatively open public records law. Cooler heads prevailed, however, and in the end lawmakers signed off on 16 exemptions, including hospital emergency plans and statewide medical stockpiles. Still 2001 saw the largest number of exemptions in more than a decade.
Spearheaded by Rep. John Carassas, R-Largo, the proposed amendment was approved by lawmakers in May, with House members voting 114-4 for its passage. The Senate passed the measure on a 37-0 vote.

"If you look at the exemptions that have passed, they generally have passed by at least two-thirds votes," said Rep. Dudley Goodlette, R-Naples, a chairman of the House Rules, Ethics and Elections Committee. "I think John Carassas was on the right track and that's frankly why I helped him get his bill passed. I support it."
Open records advocates agree the amendment, if passed, would likely have only a minimal effect on the number of exemptions passed each year. But it will raise the bar in deciding which public records exemptions would pass muster.
"By the time an exemption gets to the floor, any problems have usually been worked out," said Barbara Petersen, director of the First Amendment Foundation. "What the amendment would do is make our legislators stop and think a little bit more, because every time they create an exemption they are creating an exception to the constitution."

Critics argue that additional safeguards are not needed to protect the public oversight of government. Further, when circumstances demand, lawmakers should have the authority to make public records private without having to convince a supermajority of their peers, said Autumn Thomson, the Florida Chamber's legislative counsel and political action director.
"We're not seeking to make every document that's out there a private document," Thomson said. "Our position is that, when there is a need, to keep something private ... without having to make it a huge political issue."
Some Southwest Florida lawmakers agree the amendment is unnecessary because the legislative process has so many checks and balances.

"After Sept. 11, there was a lot of discussion about some exemptions being proposed," Saunders said. "If you look back on those that passed, I don't think anybody had a whole lot of problem with them."
State Rep. Carole Green, R-Fort Myers, said a constitutional amendment is not the answer.
"The constitution is not a place for almost anything we're seeing this fall," Green said. "These are policy questions that should be left to lawmakers."

Amendment aims for open government

Tuesday, 10/22/2002 © Orlando Sentinel
Public records helped reporters find children last summer who had been missing from the state's child-welfare agency. Police reports, Florida Department of Children & Families' files and state law-enforcement computer data gave the South Florida Sun-Sentinel direction to find nine of 24 South Florida children whom DCF workers considered missing for as long as eight years.

Information along the lines of what the newspaper used to find the kids is what legislators have tried for years to keep secret -- one reason why public-records advocates are calling for a change in the state constitution. On the general-election ballot, voters have an opportunity to make it harder for legislators to enact exemptions to public-records and open-meetings laws.

Proposed Amendment 4 would require a two-thirds vote, rather than the current simple majority vote, in each chamber of the Legislature to pass any such exemption.The proposal is being considered almost a decade to the day after Florida voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing the right to open government.

But since passage of the so-called "Sunshine Amendment," lawmakers have approved more than 850 exemptions, with only a handful generating any serious discussion in the Legislature. This spring alone, in the name of protecting privacy, promoting public safety and frustrating terrorists, Florida legislators pushed hard to restrict public access to a great variety of information kept by state and local government agencies.

Lawmakers considered sealing city utility records, complaints against doctors, drivers-license and vehicle information, auto accident reports and even rabies vaccination records. 10 new exemptions Ten exemptions -- of 70 proposed in the 2002 Legislature -- became law, of which two would not have passed if Amendment 4 had been in effect. The result of most exemptions, according to some concerned people, is that government information routinely used by citizens, businesses, watchdog groups and news organizations will no longer be available and the public will know less than it should about how government decisions are made.

Advocates for Amendment 4 say the constitutional change they seek would do no harm but would guard against the adoption of public-records exemptions that are either constitutionally flawed or based on bad public policy. "The right of the public to oversee its government is a fundamental notion of democracy. With this amendment, we're telling our government that we want to make sure that that right of access is protected," said Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit watchdog group based in Tallahassee. Critics want flexibility

But critics are concerned that Amendment 4 would take flexibility away from the Legislature. They describe situations in which it is necessary to make a document private, such as cases of state security and identity theft, in which they think legislators should have a great deal of latitude to make a record private. "A two-thirds vote empowers a minority of the Legislature to overrule a majority," said Paul Ledford, senior vice president of public affairs for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which opposes several amendments on the ballot. "There hasn't been any great abuse of the public records law from any exemptions. . . . I don't think anybody has made a case [that] the process is broken.

This is not a case of rampant abuse." State Rep. John Carassas, R-Belleair, sponsored the bill in the Legislature that put Amendment 4 on the ballot. A former assistant city attorney who often studied public-records issues, Carassas has developed a reputation in the Legislature of being a strong opponent of most records exemptions that come to the Legislature.

He has been dismayed since coming to Tallahassee two years ago that legislators barely deliberate on most records exemptions. Carassas says that because the Sunshine Amendment presumes that all government activities are open record, there should be an extraordinary burden placed on those who want to pass exceptions to it.

Therefore, he thinks the two-thirds requirement is logical. "Why shouldn't you have to meet the threshold when you want to exempt something from the state constitution?" Carassas asks rhetorically, noting that Florida's history of open public records is unique in the United States and ought to be preserved. He thinks the issue is a matter of great public interest. Building trust "The public cares about the erosions of open government," Carassas said. "It may not be something that just jumps out at you one day. But the gradual erosion of our open system of government might be the cause for some of the lack of trust or the negative impressions people have of government."

"The more transparent and open the government is," Carassas added, "the better it is for the citizens."

Don't understand the amendments? Can't help you

Thursday, 10/10/2002 © Osceola News-Gazette
I'm going to do you a big favor. I'm going to help you make a decision on some important election issues. On November's ballot, voters will find 11 proposed amendments to the state's constitution. I like just one of them.

As a responsible citizen, you probably want to have a thorough understanding of proposed revisions to enable you to make intelligent decisions on issues that could affect state government for years to come. To hell with that.; I'm going to save you some time. Don't feel distraught if you don't understand the amendments; most of them stink.

The dunderheads that came up with these amendments were about as diligent as Godzilla at a china shop. Take Amendment 1. Pertaining to the death penalty, it's too lengthy to repeat here. Just reading it is punishment enough. A local watchdog put it well: "We will be asked to read the lengthy amendment and vote on it this November," wrote Gene Marciniak, editor/publisher of the Henhouse Clucker. "It is interesting that Gov. Jeb very recently stated that one out of four Floridians are illiterate.

Therefore with this long amendment on the ballot, can we not make a strong case against it as disenfranchising a large segment of the voters?" Agreed, Gene, and whoever came up with such frothy language should be shot.

But the biggest complaint I have is most of these proposed revisions don't belong in the Constitution; they could be enacted by general law of the Florida Legislature. As I wrote a few weeks ago, a proposed amendment mandating reductions in school class sizes forces legislators to address the issue of overcrowded schools but doesn't provide any realistic solutions. That could result in lawsuits and exorbitant costs as legislators scramble to comply with it. But in the past couple of weeks, I have been persuaded to vote for Amendment 4. It's purpose, basically, is to prevent Florida lawmakers from continuing to go through the state's open-government laws with a blow torch.

They propose all types of exemptions in spite of the fact that residents overwhelmingly voted in 1992 to protect access to public records and meetings through a state constitutional amendment. Lawmakers still don't get it; perhaps one in four are illiterate. The proposed revision on this year's ballot would require two-thirds vote of the Legislature to approve any proposed exemption to public records or meetings laws.

The First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization that's a leading advocate of open government in Florida, "wholeheartedly endorses" Amendment 4. "I'm not sure whether the Legislature could accomplish the same thing by general law," said Barbara Petersen, foundation president. "However, I think the constitutional approach is far better; if the legislature could require a two-thirds vote by general law, a future legislature, unhappy, perhaps, with the right of access could too easily repeal such a law," she said. "Only the citizens can tinker with the constitution." This past session, she said, two bills pertaining to exemptions would not have passed had the amendment been in place.

Various organizations this year, she said, such as the Florida Press Association, have formed a coalition to push for its passage. As much as I don't like to see our state's constitution muddied down with amendments - namely one that would protect pregnant pigs - I feel that Amendment Four should be adopted.

The revision's language is straightforward and specific. Hard to imagine, unlike other proposed amendments, that it would result in any confusion, lawsuits or significant costs to the taxpayers. Vote for Amendment 4. What it does - quite simply - is fortify your right to know.

As for comprehending the rest of the amendments, good luck. Can't help you. Get a lawyer.

Amendment would strengthen Sunshine Law protections

© Palm Beach Post
TALLAHASSEE -- The fourth constitutional amendment on the Nov. 5 ballot makes it harder for legislators to carve out exemptions to the state's public records law. It is on the ballot for one reason: A freshman legislator didn't like what he saw when the Florida Legislature convened.

Rep. John Carassas, a Republican and former city attorney for Clearwater, came to Tallahassee in 2000 assuming that every time lawmakers tried to shield a piece of government from public view, the issue would be fiercely debated. He was wrong. "I was the lone vote on many bills," he recalled. "I tried to get my colleagues to scrutinize them more." In every case, legislators were passing exemptions to the open government protections of the state constitution.

Those protections were put into the constitution in 1992 when voters approved Florida's landmark Sunshine Amendment, guaranteeing public access to all meetings of elected officials and most government documents. "I was surprised how quickly a lot of exemptions passed, many with huge majorities -- and many were on unsteady legal ground," Carassas said.

When legislators proposed a record number of exemptions this year, as a reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, Carassas decided it was time to make it more difficult for lawmakers to close government off from the public than it was to pass a resolution, such as proclaiming Feb. 21 Smile Day. "I thought maybe we should raise the bar," he said. His proposal, co-sponsored by veteran state Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Palm Harbor, is the shortest amendment on the ballot.

It says simply that it will take a two-thirds majority of each chamber, rather than a simple majority, before an exemption to the right to open access can become law. It is endorsed by the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded by Florida newspapers, editors and broadcasters. There is no organized opposition.

Barbara Petersen, the foundation's director, sees it as an appropriate fix to what she considers "an alarming increase in the number of exemptions" proposed by lawmakers each year. There are now more than 850 exemptions to the Sunshine Amendment and to the accompanying public records law. Sixteen were passed after Sept. 11.

Yes to open government

© Palm Beach Post
With the government-in-the-sunshine amendment that got 83 percent of the vote in 1992, Floridians thought they had guaranteed public access to elected officials' meetings and the documents by which government conducts business. Through death by 1,000 exemptions, however, lawmakers have been killing off those protections of the state constitution.

There are more than 850 such exemptions. Bills that would have allowed nearly 70 more were filed during the last legislative session in what has become an annual assault on public access to public information. Though a bill that would have closed off public utility records was among those that failed, 16 new exemptions became law.

So Amendment 4 on the Nov. 5 ballot is a reaffirmation and strengthening of Florida's commitment to open government. It would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber for the Legislature to pass exemptions from the state's public records and public meetings requirements. That raises the standard from the simple majority vote. The Post recommends a YES vote on the supermajority requirement.

In addition to making it more difficult to pass exemptions, Amendment 4 may bring more attention to issues that often generate too little debate. Little attention was paid last year, for example, when lawmakers made secret "adverse incidents" of egregious misconduct or accidents reported by relatives, patients or nursing-home workers. The exemption makes it harder to sue nursing homes, whose lobbyists pushed the bill, but there also is no way for the public to know whether the state is regulating homes properly. Rather than forbid the public from seeing the reports, the Legislature could have required the deletion of sensitive names.

Lawmakers should repeal that exemption. The public can't count on such remedies, however, with public records exemptions becoming as rampant as special-interest sales-tax exemptions. For good reason, Amendment 4 is among the proposed amendments that are of a true constitutional nature. On the 10th anniversary of the Sunshine Amendment, voters should make clear their commitment to having the most open state government in the country.

Amend. 4 requires 2/3 vote to remove exemptions

Editor's note: This is the fourth in a series on proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution to be on the ballot Nov. 5. Tomorrow's story will be on Amendment 5.
Tuesday, 10/22/2002 © St. Augustine Record
TALLAHASSEE -- Disturbed by proliferating exemptions to Florida's open government laws, First Amendment advocates are seeking to require a two-thirds majority of both the state Senate and House to make future changes.

They say the passage of Amendment 4 on the Nov. 5 ballot would help the state keep its reputation as having the country's best public records act. Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, said there are already more than 850 exemptions to the state's Sunshine and Public Records laws, which require government meetings and records to be open to the public. Sixteen were added this year.

At a glance Amendment 4 The ballot title and summary of Amendment 4, a measure requiring two-thirds vote for Sunshine exemptions: Title Laws Providing Public Records or Meetings exemptions; Two-thirds Vote Required Summary Requires that laws providing exemptions from public records or public meetings requirements must, after the effective date of this amendment, be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.

Petersen conceded some exemptions are unobjectionable and that most pass by more than a two-thirds majority, but said it should not be so easy to grant exemptions to the right of open government that the state constitution guarantees. Petersen said two exemptions passed this year with less than two-thirds majorities.

One exempts records submitted by companies that receive tax refunds because they promise to create jobs and pay a specific wage. The other exempts Department of Insurance workpapers and "other information" made or received in investigations of insurance companies. "What does 'other information' mean?" Petersen asked. "It could mean anything." Rep. Randy Johnson, R-Celebration, one of four legislators to vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, disagrees with Petersen about the need for a two-thirds vote. "There has to be an incredibly compelling reason why the majority should not rule," Johnson said. He said pressure from the news media can make it hard to get a two-thirds majority.

He pointed to the media opposition to the Dale Earnhardt Family Protection Act, which exempts autopsy photos from public scrutiny. The law was passed in 2001 after newspapers sought access to autopsy photos of race car driver Dale Earnhardt, who was killed in a crash in Daytona Beach.

News media fought the passage of the law, then attacked it in court. The 5th District Court of Appeal upheld its validity, but an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court is pending. Petersen noted that despite media opposition, passage of the Earnhardt law was overwhelming, far greater than the two-thirds majority that the proposal would require.

An oink or two clutter the ballot

Saturday, 09/28/2002 © St. Petersburg Times
At the risk of offending a pregnant pig or two, I plan to vote against Amendment 10 on Nov. 5.

The way I see it, Florida has done enough to make itself a laughingstock without writing pregnant pigs into the state Constitution. We might want to figure out a way to actually count the votes before we branch out to protect farm animals. It is not that I am unsympathetic to pigs, but the idea of extending constitutional rights to animals without first giving them to cats really does offend me. Now, I'm not actually suggesting that constitutional rights be extended to cats.

Lewis and Clark, our Siamese "gang of two," already rule our house without such rights. I can only imagine what would happen if they had rights: no more pet taxis, no trips to the vet and treats every hour on the hour. Tell average voters that they'll be asked to decide the future of pregnant pigs while voting for governor, attorney general and a list of constitutional amendments and they will laugh. But it's true.

A group called Floridians for Humane Farms gathered more than 500,000 signatures from registered voters who agreed that protecting pregnant pigs was important enough to put in the state Constitution. I politely declined to sign one of these petitions last spring but got close enough to the effort to say it was a bit misleading. The couple seeking signatures at a Tallahassee street festival asked me to sign a petition favoring the humane treatment of animals.

Who could be opposed to that? But, ever cautious about signing my name to these things, I asked if the animals they wanted to protect happened to be pregnant pigs. Yes, they said. Not interested, I said. If this amendment passes, we could insert this measure right beside the section that governs lawmakers, since they are the ones with their noses in lobbyists' troughs most of the time.

Of course, I would never abuse any pig, let alone a pregnant one. I would, however, eat one properly prepared. The proposed amendment to the state Constitution would prohibit Floridians from confining pregnant pigs in anything other than a cage or crate that allows them to turn around freely. Violating the amendment would be a crime punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and as much as a year in jail. Just what we need need -- another crime to fill jails.

Still, it's hard to imagine a prosecutor standing up in court with a straight face and displaying a pregnant pig and a cage. There is one constitutional amendment on the ballot I hope does pass. Amendment 4 would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before it could amend the state's public records and meetings laws.

This amendment has been buried by the fight about amendments that would reduce classroom size and expand prekindergarten classes. Yet this one is important. More than 80 percent of the voters approved the last constitutional amendment affecting public records and open meetings. But legislators tend to ignore these things and blindly vote for each exemption that comes along.

It's rarely in the public interest to deny access to the records of government. Anything that might slow down the exemption train is worth doing. As for the other amendments, I suspect many voters will ignore them. They are long and involved, the print is small and it's hard to tell what the bureaucrats were trying to do when they pushed them to the ballot.

One amendment, for example, allows voters in Miami-Dade County to change their home rule charter after a referendum. Considering the primary election mess down there, you have to wonder how that will go over with the rest of Florida.

Amendment aims to keep public records open

© Sun-Sentinel
TALLAHASSEE
Public records helped reporters find children last summer who had been missing from the state's child-welfare agency.
Police reports, Florida Department of Children & Families' files and state law enforcement computer data gave the South Florida Sun-Sentinel direction to find nine of 24 South Florida children that DCF workers considered missing for as long as eight years.

Information along the lines of what the newspaper used to find the children is what legislators have tried for years to keep secret -- one reason why public records' advocates are calling for a change in the state constitution.
On the general election ballot, voters have an opportunity to make it harder for legislators to enact exemptions to public records and open meetings laws. Proposed Amendment 4 would require a two-thirds vote, rather than the current simple majority vote, in each chamber of the Legislature to pass any such exemption.
The proposal is being considered almost a decade to the day after Florida voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to open government. But since passage of the so-called "Sunshine Amendment," legislators have approved more than 850 exemptions, with only a handful generating any serious discussion in the Legislature.

Off the record
This spring alone, in the name of protecting privacy, promoting public safety and frustrating terrorists, Florida legislators pushed hard to restrict public access to a great variety of information kept by state and local government agencies. Legislators considered sealing city utility records, complaints against doctors, drivers license and vehicle information, auto accident reports and even rabies vaccination records.

Ten exemptions -- of 70 proposed in the 2002 Legislature -- became law, of which two would not have passed if Amendment 4 had been in effect. The result of most exemptions, according to some concerned people, is that government information routinely used by citizens, businesses, watchdog groups and news organizations will no longer be available and the public will know less than it should about how government decisions are made.

"The right of the public to oversee its government is a fundamental notion of democracy. With this amendment, we're telling our government that we want to make sure that that right of access is protected," said Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit watchdog group based in Tallahassee.

Need for privacy
But critics are concerned that Amendment 4 would take flexibility away from the Legislature. They describe situations where it is necessary to make a document private, such as cases of state security and identity theft, in which legislators should have a great deal of latitude to make a record private.

"A two-thirds vote empowers a minority of the Legislature to overrule a majority," said Paul Ledford, senior vice president of public affairs for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which opposes several amendments on the ballot. "There hasn't been any great abuse of the public records law from any exemptions ... I don't think anybody has made a case [that] the process is broken. This is not a case of rampant abuse."
State Rep. John Carassas, R-Belleair, sponsored the bill in the Legislature that put Amendment 4 on the ballot. A former assistant city attorney who often studied public-records issues, Carassas has developed a reputation in the Legislature of being a strong opponent of most records exemptions that come to the Legislature. But he's been dismayed since coming to Tallahassee two years ago that legislators barely deliberate on most records exemptions.

Carassas says that because the Sunshine Amendment presumes all government activities are open record, there should be an extraordinary burden placed on those who want to pass exceptions to it. Therefore, the two-thirds requirement, he thinks, is logical.

Open government
"Why shouldn't you have to meet the threshold when you want to exempt something from the state constitution?" Carassas asks rhetorically, noting that Florida's history of open public records is unique in America and ought to be preserved.
He claims the issue is a matter of great public interest.

"The public cares about the erosions of open government," said Carassas. "It may not be something that just jumps out at you one day. But the gradual erosion of our open system of government might be the cause for some of the lack of trust or the negative impressions people have of government.
"The more transparent and open the government is," Carassas adds, "the better it is for the citizens."

Amendment 4 will help guarantee sunshine in Florida

Wednesday, 10/16/2002 © Venice Gondolier
Ten years ago, Florida voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution that guaranteed us the right of open government. The foundation of that amendment, referred to as the Sunshine Law, can be fortified if voters pass Amendment 4 on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The proposed Sunshine-in-Government amendment is a resolution drafted by Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Palm Harbor, and Rep. John Carassas, R-Largo. It would require any exemptions from public records of public meetings requirements be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.

While we frown on burdening our constitution with amendments, this resolution is important to the rights of private citizens -- and the media -- to have access to knowledge on how government works, how it affects us and who is responsible. The events of Sept. 11 sparked an avalanche of bills and proposals to limit access to documents and meetings that should be public. In 2002 alone, legislators considered more than 60 new laws, 10 of which passed.

They would have allowed defense contractors, who get public subsidies for creating jobs and paying certain wages, to keep secret information on whether they upheld their end of the deal. Legislators attempted to pass laws that would allow elected officials to meet privately to discuss how to spend our tax money; hide information on doctors' mistakes; and empower police to arrest people and not reveal their names for three weeks or longer.

The Florida Board of Education even wanted to close its meetings -- a move that would allow it to discuss tuition costs, salaries and hirings in private. Without sunshine in our state laws, county commissioners would be able to meet and discuss the hiring and firing of administrators and managers. Deals could be made and influence peddled.

Legislators should know by now that keeping secrets from the public is not a good practice and a sure way to lose credibility. Passage of Amendment 4 will strengthen that message.

Amendment Four: Protecting Open Government and Constitutional Rights
By Whitney Morris
University of Florida College of Journalism and Mass Communications Student.

This past year has been an unprecedented one for our nation. In times of crisis Americans have traditionally been willing to give up certain Constitutional rights in order to protect their futures, but the War on Terror has taken security and secrecy throughout the government to new levels. During this time it is vital that people not forget that the country is fighting to preserve freedoms granted to them by the Constitution. Public interest is increasingly being dismissed, and Florida's democratic ideals cannot be preserved when exemptions to the state's Constitution continue to be passed. During this year's general elections Floridians have the opportunity to defend their constitutional rights by voting to strengthen existing public records and meetings laws.

Currently the Sunshine Law requires that government decision-making occur openly, unless, due to "public necessity," an exemption is passed by a simple majority vote in the legislature. Amendment 4, which will be on the ballot November 5, 2002, requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate for any bills closing public records or meetings to pass.

Florida has some of the strongest public meetings and public records laws of any state in the country. E-mails, maps, letters, documents, sound recordings, photographs, films, and data processing software linked to any governmental body in the state can be evaluated by the people. Thanks to the Sunshine Law and the Public Records Law, Floridians can find:

Inspection results for daycare centers
A high school's dropout rates and test scores
If a sex offender lives nearby
How much has been paid for homes
The true tax value of property
What grocery stores have violated health regulations
What restaurants have violated health regulations
If a bus driver has a criminal record
If professionals (doctors, contractors, etc.) are properly licensed
Where re-zoning is being considered

It is a common misconception that public records and meetings primarily serve the members of the press. Although it is true that the press accesses public records frequently, the laws regarding open government work to serve the people first and foremost. The ability to access such information can help people make well-informed and intelligent decisions, regardless of whether the choices are concerning simple daily activities, or once-in-a-lifetime issues.

Amendment 4 is intended to update and strengthen Florida's long-standing open government laws. The Public Records Law began in 1909, enabling citizens to access to records of public agencies. Since then, the definition of a public record has broadened to encompass any advanced form that a record may now take.

In the 1970s, the Sunshine Law was enacted to expand the realm of open government to include public meetings held by most government agencies. Then, in 1992, an Constitutional Amendment passed stating that records and meetings of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches were to be opened to the public, unless a simple majority in the House and Senate voted for an exemption. The two-thirds requirement of Amendment 4 is aimed at preventing the number of exemptions from escalating.

James Madison once wrote that "the right of freely examining public characters and measures… has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right," supporting the idea that open government leads to a more active and interested public. When the people are informed, they may then have greater trust in their leaders.

Yet there is so much that citizens are not permitted to know. Over the years more than 850 exemptions to the Sunshine Law have been passed, keeping the public in the dark about issues that are commonly of great relevance to their lives. For example, the public is not allowed to review information regarding which nursing homes are at fault for patient neglect. And despite the fact that meetings between public University presidents covering topics such as university tuition costs, the state-budget and Bright Futures scholarships were subject to the Sunshine Law, they were kept confidential. The list of closed important records and meetings such as these goes on.

Some of the most recent public records and meetings exemptions to be passed were intended for security purposes, and were necessary. Other exemptions, however, were proposed with disregard to public sentiment, and exploited the sensitive post-September 11, 2001 political environment. This is precisely why passing exemptions needs to become more difficult. The two-thirds vote required by Amendment Four would further safe-guard open records and meetings and improve government accountability.

State Senator Jack Latvala and State Representative John Carassas sponsored this bill, which was approved for ballot placement unanimously by the Senate and by 114 of 118 members in the House. Most of Florida's leaders seem to believe that government should be open unless there is a necessity for secrecy. Unfortunately, there are still some who think the opposite, and that records and meetings should be closed to the public unless there is a need for them to be opened. There are enough of these officials to prevent the public from learning all that that they have the right to know.

"Florida's long history of open public records is unique in America, allowing our citizens to see what their elected officials and state employees are doing on their behalf," said Representative John Carassas. "Every year, the Legislature approves exemptions to our public records laws, chipping away at our open form of government."

From the beginning, Madison and Jefferson recognized the importance of open government. Their wisdom is increasingly being disregarded with every proposed exemption to the Sunshine Law. The two-thirds vote requirement of Amendment 4 broadens the power of the people of Florida through knowledge.