Provides for immunity from suit for invasion of privacy. (8/1/22)
Impact
The implementation of SB 228 is expected to modify state laws concerning public records and the responsibilities of record custodians. By providing a statutory immunity, this bill is designed to encourage the transparency of government bodies through the facilitation of public records requests. This means that custodians may feel more secure in releasing information, ultimately leading to increased accessibility of public records. However, the condition that the release of records be on the advice of legal counsel introduces a layer of complexity that custodians must navigate.
Summary
Senate Bill 228, introduced by Senator Morris, establishes a legal framework that provides immunity from lawsuits for custodians of public records in specific circumstances. Under this legislation, a custodian who releases public records in response to requests is afforded protection against invasion of privacy claims, as long as the release is conducted according to the counsel of an attorney and is not deemed arbitrary or capricious. This bill aims to clarify the legal standing of custodians and protect them from legal repercussions associated with their role in managing public records.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 228 appears largely supportive among lawmakers, particularly those advocating for increased transparency and accountability in government. Proponents argue that this bill supports good governance by safeguarding custodians from potential lawsuits, thus promoting more open access to public documents. However, there may also be concerns regarding the balance between transparency and privacy, with potential criticism focusing on the risks of overly broad applications of this immunity that could undermine individual privacy rights.
Contention
Key points of contention related to SB 228 center on the implications of granting immunity to public records custodians. Critics might argue that while the intent is to protect custodians, it could also inadvertently shield negligent actions, leading to less accountability over time. Concerns have been raised regarding what constitutes 'arbitrary and capricious' actions and who determines this standard. These discussions reflect broader debates about privacy, government transparency, and the responsibilities of public officials in managing sensitive information.