News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

George Talbot III, FOIArkansas Project

When the attorney general issues an opinion on the Freedom of Information Act it may not be legally binding, but willfully disregarding it may not be a good idea, a veteran journalist and FOIA advocate said.

FOIArkansas----------------Unlocking the public's business

“If you’re a public official in Arkansas, and you ask for an attorney general’s opinion but decide to disregard it, then you’re not acting under the color of law and you can be held personally liable,” said Carol Griffee, a freelance reporter based in Little Rock. “That’s quite an incentive for most folks.”

The act has been the subject of hundreds of opinions since its inception in 1967.

“Customarily, this office views itself as a reservoir of FOI expertise,’’ Attorney General Mark Pryor said in an interview.

Pryor said he wants to put that expertise to work by doing more seminars on FOI issues and “thinking creatively about how we can communicate with agencies an

Photo by David Robinson, FOIArkansas Project Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor (middle), speaking with FOIArkansas Project coordinators Brenda Blagg (left) and Dennis Byrd, said he would like to conduct more seminars on the state’s FOIA in order to take advantage of his office’s ‘expertise’ on the subject.

d other public sector lawyers about FOI.”

Elana Wills, senior assistant attorney general and head of the Opinions Division, said the attorney general’s office has become sort of a clearinghouse for questions about the FOI Act.

“We find ourselves all day long taking questions, disseminating information about the act out to local people,’’ she said.

Since the late 1970s, attorneys general consistently have agreed to publish an FOI handbook and have sponsored seminars on the law for public officials around the state.

With one notable exception, the state’s attorneys general have been supportive of the law, according to Robert McCord, an independent journalist who was instrumental in authoring the FOI Act.

Bruce Bennett, the incumbent at the time the act was approved in 1967, was its last outright opponent, McCord said.

“Since (Bennett), all of them, even the lousy ones, have been in favor of the law,” said McCord. “We’ve had some opinions that were kind of half-hearted, but, generally speaking, I don’t recall any open hostility.”

Griffee agreed, but said “the jury’s still out” on Pryor, who was elected in 1998.

Griffee took issue with an opinion issued by Pryor in March that loosened the meeting-notice requirement for public officials. The FOI Act requires advance notice of public meetings.

A “casual or by-chance” meeting between two quorum-court members, in which official business is discussed, Pryor said, does not violate the FOIA. If such a meeting occurs, no notice would be required.

“I’ve been totally unimpressed by him so far, but we’ll wait and see,” said Griffee. “I have no quarrel with any of the other (attorneys general). They’ve all given at least lip service to the law.”

Former Attorney General Winston Bryant issued an opinion in 1995 addressing meeting notification. The request asked whether it would be legal for a city council to suspend its meetings — rather than officially adjourn — so that the council technically is “always” in session, thus allowing the members to confer about city business without notifying the public or the news media.

The one-word answer from Bryant: “No.”

The law requires governing bodies to furnish the time and place of regular meetings to anyone who asks and, in the case of special or emergency meetings, to provide at least two hours’ notice to the media.

A 1996 request also sought a loophole in the notification requirement by asking whether notice of a 7 a.m. meeting faxed to the media during the night would satisfy the two-hour minimum.

“No,” Bryant opined, “if it is known that no one will be present to receive the fax when it is sent. Although such notice would likely comply with the two-hour requirement, it would contravene the purpose of the FOIA.”