fees for public records

22 Feb, 2015

Editorial: Bills would keep citizens in dark on public records

By |2015-03-02T07:39:27-06:00February 22, 2015|Categories: exemptions, fees|Tags: , , , , |0 Comments

Awesome editorial about need for transparency and accountability in government by Knoxville News Sentinel, reprinted here with permission: Three bills now pending in the Tennessee Legislature would combine to cripple the public's access to government records. One would make citizens pay to see official documents. Another would prevent the public from reviewing state employee performance evaluations. The third would shield from scrutiny the organization that regulates school sports statewide. The bills' sponsors and other lawmakers should reconsider these proposals in the context of transparency and accountability. One bill being pushed by the Tennessee School Boards Association would allow state and local government agencies to charge citizens a fee to inspect [...]

22 Feb, 2015

News Sentinel: Bill would charge extra fees for public records

By |2015-03-02T07:36:45-06:00February 22, 2015|Categories: fees|Tags: , , , , |0 Comments

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports in its Sunday edition what Knox County school board members think of an effort  by the Tennessee School Boards Association to change the law so that citizens can be charged inspection fees for public records. The story "Bill would charge extra for public records" by reporter Lydia X. McCoy is reprinted here, with permission: A majority of Knox County school board members said they support proposed legislation that would allow government agencies, including school systems, to charge residents more to inspect public records. For others, the bill raises some concerns. The bill, being sponsored by state Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville, and state Rep. Steve McDaniel, R-Parkers [...]

13 Feb, 2015

Proposed Tennessee bills could close public records; a few open them up

By |2015-02-13T09:19:09-06:00February 13, 2015|Categories: exemptions, Legislature|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |1 Comment

Lawmakers of 109th General Assembly have filed a host of bills to block or hinder citizen access to public records in the hands of government. Several of the proposed Tennessee bills could close public records, while another proposes to charge fees to inspect records. The latter would set up a hurdle that could discourage citizens from pursuing records requests. The proposed fees would cover some of the time public employees spend gathering or redacting records for disclosure. Local government would determine the hours of labor involved, which leaves open the possibility that fees could be inflated to block or discourage access. While some bills affecting public records  focus on making [...]

4 Aug, 2014

Open Records Counsel: Chattanooga utility EPB wrongly demanded fees to view public records

By |2015-04-28T11:34:23-05:00August 4, 2014|Categories: fees|Tags: , , , , , , , |0 Comments

The city-owned utility of Chattanooga charged a University of Tennessee-Chattanooga student $1,767 to view its public records on advertising spending -- an amount that the state's Open Records Counsel said is not in line with the law. Despite counsel Elisha Hodge telling Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (EPB) that it could not charge labor fees to compile records for a citizen to inspect, the utility stood by its decision in a story in the Chattanooga Times Free Press and tried to justify its action by saying the student was working with a national think tank. Ethan Greene, a student at University of Tennessee-Chattanooga Student Ethan Greene on March 24 requested [...]

30 Jan, 2014

Hendersonville: Reducing the cost of transparency

By |2019-09-11T16:12:40-05:00January 30, 2014|Categories: fees|Tags: , , , |1 Comment

Reporter Sherry Mitchell writes in The Hendersonville Standard this week that city officials are blaming a delay in its annual audit because staff has been backed up fulfilling public records requests, largely from citizens involved with EverythingHendersonville.com. This is the same situation that resulted in an October 2013 opinion from the Office of Open Records Counsel saying that the city had improperly adopted a fee schedule for public records, and to charge fees, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen needed to pass an ordinance. (The mayor had done this on his own, without going before the the governing entity who would need to vote on such an ordinance in a public [...]

Go to Top