Innocent until proven guilty? Well, yes

Every so often during my three decades as a newspaper editor, I would field complaints that the newspaper should not have reported an arrest (usually for prostitution, drunk driving or similar offenses). "People are innocent until proven guilty, ain't they?" Well, of course, I would respond, but we only reported that they were arrested, not that they were guilty. (One of the hardest lessons I had to teach new crime reporters was not to assume or imply that an arrestee was the "perpetrator." It remains one of the most common errors I see in some publications.)

Now the N.C. General Assembly is taking this empty argument to the issue of personnel records. Even though North Carolina has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation regarding release of information about taxpayer-paid personnel, legislators seem poised to make matters even worse. An amendment offered by Rep. Deborah Ross, a Democrat once thought to be an open-government liberal, would keep secret any personnel actions until after a state employee is convicted of a crime. Her argument, that state employees who have not been proven guilty or who have not exhausted their appeals should not have their reputations sullied by public exposure, is the same argument I used to hear from mommas of drunk drivers ("It'll just kill his grandma if this goes in the paper; I know it will!").

I suspect the State Employees Association of North Carolina union has its fingerprints on this revision to a bill that was meant to open up the state's secretiveness over employees who have been disciplined, demoted or fired. If legislators approve the Ross amendment, it will be a sad day for taxpayers who would be denied the facts about the people who supposedly work for them. Maybe next year, legislators will make it illegal to publish the names of drunk drivers or guys caught in prostitution stings until after they go to trial (and plead to a lesser offense) and exhaust all their appeals.

Good veto kills legislative secrecy bill

Congratulations to Gov. Bev Perdue for vetoing a bill that would make documents related to legislative actions confidential. Perdue's first veto was a good one, if only for symbolic reasons. Legislative leaders have not decided whether they will convene a special session to try to override the veto of the bill, which passed unanimously.

North Carolina has generally good public records laws. The preamble to these laws states that all governmental records of any format belong to the people of North Carolina. The law makes some exceptions, such as medical and student records, but the principle of open records is a sound one. Transparency and access to records discourage governmental favoritism and fraud. State laws require local government meeting minutes, memos, correspondence, e-mail, deeds, judgments, complaints, directives and so forth to be accessible to anyone who requests them.

But the legislators who passed these laws also exempted themselves from most public records and open meetings laws. Unlike city councils or county commissions, for example, legislative committees can close their meetings to the public whenever they feel the urge. The bill Perdue vetoed would have closed access to legislative working papers, including written requests from constituents, inquiries by legislators and legislative proposals addressed to representatives. Perdue is absolutely right that "These are the people's documents."

Perhaps the most egregious part of the bill was the provision that would make releasing the documents legislators want to hide a criminal offense. Under current law, there are no criminal penalties for violating the public records or open meetings laws, so this would be a significant change. Executive branch employees could be charged criminally for releasing those documents, but legislative employees would face only civil complaints.

In the wake of all the political scandals involving Jim Black, Frank Ballance, Mike Easley and others, transparency should be a priority issue in statewide campaigns. If Democrats want to avoid it and Republicans' hearts aren't in it, voters should demand that candidates take a stand: Are you for governmental transparency or are secret documents and back-room deals the way to get things done?