Will Murphy stain his legacy with this bipartisan sin? | Editorial

As advocates made clear, time and time again, this bill would only help public officials hide their shenanigans in the shadows. (Phil McAuliffe | For NJ Advance Media)

When two legislative committees approved a fast-tracked bill last week to restrict access to government records, it was to a chorus of boos, shouts of “shame” and people angrily storming out.

A room full of outraged citizens had lined up to shake their fists at this rank proposal, and the Legislature showed its disdain for public input by ramming it through in a rush.

Never mind the sophisticated, credible feedback that experts gave about the damage, and how it would allow public officials to operate in secrecy. They brushed it all aside with arrogance.

Today, they’re holding a final vote in which a bipartisan group of lawmakers is expected to pass the bill. Then, the question will be, will Gov. Phil Murphy sign it into law, and accept this stain on his legacy?

“Everybody hates secrecy, no matter what party you are, how liberal you are, how conservative,” notes CJ Griffin, a prominent public records advocate and attorney. “This is something everybody’s going to remember, because it’s been such a bad process, such a bad bill.”

The man leading the charge, Sen. Paul Sarlo, started the hearing off last week by thanking advocacy groups, including those pushing for open access to records, NJ Advance Media reported – which backfired pretty spectacularly.

“Being as you started naming the ACLU of New Jersey as being a part of the negotiations, let me be incredibly clear for the record, this is an awful bill and the ACLU of New Jersey wholly condemns it in every form we’ve seen thus far,” ACLU-NJ Policy Counsel Joe Johnson reportedly told lawmakers, to cheers from the crowd before walking out.

“It’s all meaningless negotiation just so you could say you worked with us.”

Because as advocates made clear, time and time again, this bill would only help public officials hide their shenanigans in the shadows. Under its strict new limitations, we’d never find out about emails or text messages like, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Griffin’s reading of the bill found that a section of existing law intended to allow the public access to government documents had been deleted.

Currently, the law says these records “shall be” readily accessible to the public, and any potential limitation on this right of access “shall be construed in favor of access.”

Others dispute that, and say it’s a misreading of last minute changes.

But regardless, the bill would greatly restrict access to government records. It would allow public agencies that already routinely deny legitimate requests to charge outrageous fees for public records, like $1,000 for a dashcam video. And it would make it harder to get texts and emails exchanged between government officials, without knowing ahead of time exactly who sent them, when, and what they were about.

Perhaps worst of all, it would make it nearly impossible to find an attorney to take your case, because they’d no longer be guaranteed legal fees from the agency that wrongfully withholds the record.

People are understandably scared about the state of our democracy, which feels under attack these days in New Jersey – a state where it really shouldn’t be, Griffin says. So, let’s watch closely to see what Murphy does, and what message he ultimately sends.

“He seems to be the one person right now who can stand up and say, ‘I’m not signing this bill into law,” Griffin says. ‘This isn’t the right thing to do.’”

On his WNYC show “Ask the Governor” last week, Murphy declined to discuss the details of the bill, but indicated he might think twice. “There are good reasons to update it,” he said of public records law, “but I don’t want to throw out the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We’re a transparent state, and we don’t want to lose that.”

For legislators, it may be too late for redemption. But Murphy has a final shot.

Editor’s note: This editorial has been modified from its original version to reflect that the executive director of the Senate Democratic Office, an attorney, says the section of law referenced by Griffin has not been deleted; that is a misreading.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.comOpinion on Facebook.

© Advance Local Media LLC.