Dennis Byrd, FOIArkansas project

Journalists aren't soothsayers, although a few would have the public believe otherwise.

Dennis Byrd

Those of us who spent months planning a statewide survey to determine how public officials respond to freedom of information requests thought sure sheriffs or school superintendents would be the least compliant.

Wrong.

It was the state Health Department -- specifically county health units of the state Health Department.

Sheriffs, or their subordinates, and superintendents, or their employees, provided the most unusual responses to the survey, but the Health Department denied access more often than any other office.

Surveyors went into 75 counties, all on the same day, and requested specific documents from four offices -- the health unit, a school district, a city, and the county jail. The school district and city were chosen at random.

The survey was part of the FOIArkansas Project -- an effort by five newspapers and Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock to test compliance with the 1967 state Freedom of Information Act.

The Municipal League apparently has done a good job educating city personnel on the FOI Act. Seldom were surveyors even questioned when they asked to see documentation on how much money the city receives from the state.

The surveyors, many of whom worked for newspapers, asked for all documents as citizens because of a perception that public officials may be more inclined to release documents to reporters than to other taxpayers.

In all, city workers showed surveyors the requested document 65 times in initial visits -- an 87-percent compliance rate. At health units, the compliance rate on initial visits was 51 percent. Thirty-seven health units would not allow surveyors to see the most recent restaurant-inspection report.

When surveyors went to the county lockups and asked to see a list of people incarcerated, they were successful 46 times (61 percent). At the 75 school-district offices, surveyors were allowed to view the superintendent's employment contract 54 times (72 percent).

Darrell Porter, superintendent at the Bradley School District in Lafayette County, could not imagine why anyone would want to see his contract, although he tried to imagine.

After allowing the surveyor to see the contract, Porter said he wanted some legal advice before giving up a copy. As Porter and the surveyor waited in the superintendent's office for a call back from the attorney for the Arkansas School Boards Association, the superintendent's imagination became transparent, although the surveyor made it clear he wasn't going to provide any information other than he was a citizen seeking information.

Porter wanted to know first if the surveyor was doing research.

Perhaps the surveyor was providing information for a possible governor's appointment.

Was the inquiry in relation to a possible job offer?

Had there been a complaint; was he in some kind of trouble?

Still no call from the attorney.

Giving up on finding out why the surveyor wanted the contract, but determined to make conversation, he finally said, "Do you like to hunt and fish?"

Some chit-chat followed until, finally, Porter made a copy of the contract, gave it to the surveyor without the legal advice he had sought, and said, "If I've made a mistake, I've made a mistake."

Some sheriffs used their badges to try to intimidate surveyors. They had surveyors followed, had their driver's licenses checked for outstanding warrants and called their place of employment, in one case.

"Get the prosecutor on the phone," one sheriff said loudly after a female surveyor was told the jail log wasn't a public record. The sheriff eventually allowed the log to be copied, but grudgingly.

So nobody gets the wrong impression, there were very accommodating public officials, even among sheriffs, superintendents, and Health Department employees.

The most satisfying part of the survey was the response of Dr. Fay Boozman, the soft-spoken director of the state Department of Health.

Boozman said his employees' performance was "disappointing," and that it would become imperative that all employees comply with requests under the state Freedom of Information Act in the future.

He said he had reviewed the department's policy and found that there was nothing wrong with it, except that it wasn't being followed. He put together a plan for educating all employees by March 2000 through a training program.

He offered considerable insight about the survey results: "What this really points up is, the FOI is interpreted as being an intrusion." Department employees did not understand "the heart" of the FOI Act, he said. "It's basic to people controlling their government, people knowing what their government's doing."

Well said.