I chair the Public Records Exceptions Subcommittee of the Maine Right to Know Advisory Committee, and we met today for the second time this summer.  We are charged by the legislature with the task of reviewing every single exception to Maine's Right to Know or Freedom of Access Act in statute over a ten year period.  This year we are tasked with examining 91 confidentiality provisions in Maine law that keep information in the hands of various governmental agencies secret from the public.

The public's right to know what our government is doing and why is fundamental to our democracy.  It is the only way we can evaluate the actions and decisions of those elected to represent us and hold them accountable when it is time to vote.  At the same time, we have a constitutional right to privacy.  The government can and unfortunately does collect a great deal of information about private citizens, and it has an obligation to ensure that improper disclosure of that private information does not harm individuals.

Some of the confidentiality provisions we review make obvious sense.  For example, the identity of library patrons and the books they read is known to library administrators but confidential, at least under state law. 

Other provisions leave us scratching our heads.  Should law enforcement and the Secretary of State be able to designate some nongovernmental vehicle registrations as confidential for public safety reasons? 

This committee may sound boring.  The exceptions cover hundreds of pages of relatively dry legal statute.  But sometimes we are reminded by members of the public that almost every confidentiality provision has real-life consequences -- sometimes positive and sometimes negative -- for real people. Today a number of Mainers from Piscataquis and Somerset counties observed our deliberations.  At our last meeting, they shared their concerns about a proposed East-West transportation corridor and a confidentiality provision under Title 23, Section 4251, subsection 10 that keeps confidential working papers and all records pertaining to public-private partnerships for transportation projects with initial capital costs of at least $25,000,000.  The concerned Mainers felt that they were not receiving sufficient information about proposals for an East-West corridor, information that the Department of Transportation testified today it does not have.  While today's debate was not about whether an East-West corridor is a good idea (the ACLU has no position for or against), it was about when and how much information should the Department of Transportation share about public-private partnerships of large magnitude.  And the presence of so many Mainers from far-flung communities at these two meetings was an indication of public interest in this question.  I voted in favor of repeal of the exception, but I was in the minority. 

Today we also debated whether hospitals should be required to disclose the number and type of sentinel events that occur to the public.  The Bangor Daily News recently shared with readers that sentinel events often go unreported.  Again, I voiced support for disclosure to make such records public, but members of Maine Medical Association and Maine Hospital Association expressed concerns about unintended consequences to health and safety of such disclosure, suggesting that disclosure might further hamper reporting by hospitals.  The committee voted to table the matter to our next meeting for further study and discussion. 

If there's a confidentiality provision of Maine law that gives you concern because you think the information ought to be public, the Public Records Exceptions Subcommittee wants to know about it.  You can contact the Public Records Exceptions Subcommittee here.  Similarly, if there's a category of information that you think ought to be confidential under the right to privacy, our committee is interested in hearing your views.  We don't have the power to change the law.  We can only recommend changes to the legislature.  But the public's desire to know often informs the right to know.  In the same way, the public's demands for privacy are the only way the right to privacy in the digital age will be protected.  The strength of our constitutional rights depends on all of us speaking up and advocating for our rights.  As the adage goes, freedom doesn't protect itself.