A bill to give government agencies greater power to deny public information requests – allowing agencies, for example, to ignore for an unspecified period of time all of the requests of individuals or groups deemed troublesome – ran into a buzzsaw of opposition at an Annapolis hearing this week.

Citizens, representatives of the news media, civil rights and good government groups, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said the legislation flies in the face of the transparency goals of the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).

“I’m curious how this isn’t an infringement upon freedom of the press,” Delegate Tiffany Alston, a Prince George’s County Democrat, said at a House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing.

“We’re taking one step closer to saying, ‘we don’t want the public to see what we do,’” warned Republican Brian A. Chisholm of Anne Arundel County.

“We already,” he added, “have a trust problem in this country – in all of government now – between the people we govern and the people who govern.”

The sponsor of the bill – the Office of the Maryland Attorney General headed by Anthony Brown – argues that the changes are needed to give the Public Information Act Compliance Board greater latitude to reject “egregious” requests that are bogging its work down.

“Frivolous and vexatious PIA requests are rare,” Patrick Hughes, chief of the opinions and advice division of the AG’s office, testified on Tuesday. “But when they target an agency, they can disrupt the operations of government and make it hard for an agency to respond timely to legitimate requests from the press, members of the public and others.”

Under HB 806 (and companion SB 554), the word “abusive” would be added to “frivolous,” “vexatious” and “in bad faith,” descriptors for the kinds of requests from which a state agency could seek relief from the board.

Why this word?

“Abusive” would allow the board to reject requests that are “harassing or personally attacking the custodian or government employees, but that might not be numerous enough to qualify as vexatious,” Hughes explained.

Other provisions in the bill:

• It allows the board to authorize an agency to ignore not only a request, but “a pattern of requests on the same or similar topics.”

• It allows the board to issue an order in certain cases that an agency “need not respond to future requests from the applicant for a specified period of time.”

• It permits an agency to go to the circuit court to allege that an applicant’s request or pattern of requests is improper under the law.

“Taking it out on the public”

Several committee members appeared to be aghast at the bill’s scope.

“If this commission can authorize a custodian to ignore a citizen’s future request – regardless of whether those requests are also frivolous, vexatious or abusive – what the heck are we doing?” asked Del. Terri L Hill (D, 12th), who represents parts of Baltimore and Howard counties.

Addressing Hughes, a fellow committee member said the bill appears to punish citizens or journalists seeking information about government activities.

“You mentioned people [making requests] having an axe to grind. I don’t want to see a reverse axe to grind – taking it out on the public,” said Del. Steven C. Johnson, a Harford County Democrat. “Shouldn’t there be some guardrails?”

A major opponent of the bill was Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the MDDC (Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia) Press Association, who said she was also speaking for the ACLU of Maryland, Common Cause of Maryland, Disability Rights Maryland and the Public Justice Center.

“There are frivolous and vexatious cases,” Snyder said, “but we feel like this is just an oversized reaction to what is essentially 1% of the caseload of the ombudsman and the PIA Compliance Board.”

“This is an oversized reaction to what is essentially 1% of the caseload”  – Rebecca Snyder, MDDC Press Association.

The AG’s Hughes noted that the recent flood of problematic requests were not filed by media organizations. Even so, Snyder said, the problem doesn’t justify the bill’s sweeping language.

“The Compliance Board did rule. The process is working. They are issuing opinions which will create precedent,” she said. “There’s a lot at stake here. Why are we going so big?”

“Profound chilling effect”

Speaking briefly in favor of the bill was Michael Sanderson, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo). He said the bill could be tweaked, but its “backbone” is valid.

“We have custodians who bear personal liability for making sure all these decisions are correct,” Sanderson said.

The hearing concluded with testimony from a citizen opponent of the bill, John Galbreath.

He zeroed in on a provision that allows a state agency to receive “non-monetary relief” against a citizen or organization.

“A citizen or organization could be banned from receiving any records they might request on any topic. And this total ban can be for any specified period of time, which could be five years, 20 years or even a lifetime,” he said.

“This bill gives custodians a broad new right to sue citizens and organizations directly in circuit court,” he continued, asserting that this provision would have “a profound chilling effect on citizens and organizations that request public records, including the press.”

“This chilling effect may be what the AG’s office is looking for,” he added, “but it does not comport with the PIA Act’s foundational principles.”