Michigan inched a step closer to applying its open records laws to the governor and the Legislature Wednesday. That’s after the Michigan Senate passed bills to expand the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
Michigan is one of few states that don’t allow FOIA requests for the governor or lawmakers, despite years of trying to change that.
Senator Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield) has been working on the bipartisan legislation for years. He said corruption scandals among lawmakers show the need for stronger FOIA laws.
“I don't know what more we could say to make the case for this, because the bad behavior and the darkness over this Capitol building makes the case better than we can,” Moss told reporters after Senate session Wednesday.
Critics of the bills say they allow too many exceptions for things like policy recommendations, records held by the governor for fewer than 30 days, or communications with constituents.
State Senator Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) said the bills are more “bark than bite.”
“Michigan ranks among the worst states in government transparency, and taxpayers deserve to have real measures that will push open wide the door on government secrecy, not merely cracks in the blinds,” Runestad said ahead of the Senate vote.
The bill package sponsors defend the carve-outs as reasonable for the policymaking process to play out.
Runestad also raised concerns about the FOIA coordinators in the House and Senate being appointed solely by each chamber’s leader, saying that led to the possibility of making the position political. He said he reluctantly voted in favor of the bills.
The package ultimately passed the Senate with only two votes against it.
In the House, where similar legislation died last session, Republican House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) told reporters earlier this month to not expect “fast action” on the bills.
Still, Senator Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan), another package co-sponsor, said he’s undeterred. Even if House votes don’t come quickly.
“I believe the support for the issue has never been greater because people have made promises and commitments on the campaign trail that they support this, but they need to learn how it is. And there's a lot of nuance,” McBroom said.
McBroom mentioned he has since had conversations with Hall, who has voted for similar bills in the past, where Hall assured his support.
Hall’s office did not respond to a request for clarification by Wednesday afternoon.
At the time of his comments, Hall said he’s more focused on other issues like creating more transparency in the budget process. To that end, the House unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday to require lawmakers to publicly name which special projects they’re sponsoring in the budget ahead of voting on such items.
That raises the possibility of both chambers potentially making a deal to take up one another’s open government priorities.
