Police, sheriff’s offices were the least helpful, most intimidatingPORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – There is absolutely no doubt that a concealed handgun permit application is a public record, if you ask Wasco County District Attorney Eric Nisley.

But if you head up the road a ways east to Wallowa County and ask the sheriff’s Chief Civil Deputy Ava Skillings, she’ll tell you flat out, “No.”

A statewide audit of public agencies, by The Associated Press and the Society of Professional Journalists, found no consistent interpretation of a public records law that is one of the more liberal in the nation.

Former Gov. Vic Atiyeh, considered one of the most accessible public officials in politics during his two terms, said Oregon has built up a reputation for open government, and it is important to maintain public access, consistently and fairly.

“My personal feeling is that, if somebody walked into an agency and wanted some information, it’s their government – it’s not ‘our’ government,” Atiyeh said. “They’re entitled to get the information, and that’s the way it should be.”

The state open records law aims to make certain records accessible for inspection by the entire public, without restriction, in all 36 Oregon counties.

Instead, some auditors were wrongly asked for identification, questioned about their request, told the records were unavailable, warned there could be a significant cost involved or asked to fill out detailed request forms. Police and sheriff’s offices were the least helpful and most intimidating, auditors noted.

Requests to see concealed handgun permit applications drew the most resistance, with access granted in only eight counties.

Requests to see the budget, by comparison, were granted without much problem in nearly every county, with only Canyon City in Grant County unable to meet the request because it was made during a change in computer systems.

Only a little more than half the 178 public records requests were granted statewide.

The only counties where all records requests were granted were both rural areas, Union and Sherman counties.

The bulk of the requests granted were for financial information, such as the county budgets, or school superintendent contracts. The response for those documents, auditors noted, was generally helpful and polite.

One request for public financial documents – expense reports for city managers – caused widespread confusion because those records sometimes amount to just a handful of restaurant or gasoline receipts, or maybe a couple of hotel bills.

Paperwork was not a problem for police agencies, at least in generating it.

Access to routine arrest records was denied in a dozen counties despite universal agreement among the attorneys and prosecutors interviewed for the audit that those records must be made public.

For many police departments, requests for simple arrest reports that are logged as public records every day were confused with more detailed investigative reports that are generally sealed while a case is pending in court.

As Oregon law states: “The record of an arrest or the report of a crime shall be disclosed unless and only for so long as there is a clear need to delay disclosure in the course of a specific investigation …”

Followup calls to police supervisors in cities where clerks had denied auditor requests for basic arrest records cleared up some confusion. But even then, some requests were denied without citing any law.

Kevin Neely, spokesman for state Attorney General Hardy Myers, said counties and cities have considerable room to interpret public records law, including requiring requests in writing and charging reasonable fees for copies, depending on manpower and the type of records requested.

The law also contains a long list of exemptions, such as medical or personnel files, or trade secrets.

The tough part is maintaining access at the level intended by the spirit of the public records law, Neely said.

“It shouldn’t be a big barrier,” he said.

Neely noted that public agencies are bombarded with records requests of all types, from verbal requests to written and e-mail inquiries. The response, he said, “is very uneven” for most state and local government agencies.

“I think it’s fair to say that, with a couple of exceptions, the posture of public officials was ‘No,'” said Tim Gleason, dean of the journalism school at the University of Oregon and an expert on public records law.

He noted there is little incentive for police or government agencies to say “Yes” when there is a risk of being sued for giving out too much information, or the wrong information.

“If you’re too conservative in your reading of the law, what is the cost if you make a mistake?” Gleason said. “The answer is, there is no real cost to saying, ‘No.'”

The result can be a suspicious or even hostile attitude that auditors said they encountered repeatedly among many of the clerks and supervisors who handle public records requests.

“I wasn’t going to hand over our files to anybody,” said Skilling, the chief civil deputy for the Wallowa County sheriff’s office. “I don’t give out the personal information on anybody without a subpoena.”

During the audit, requests often were referred to a supervisor, or the county’s legal staff or a district attorney, without providing the auditor with a specific reason or any estimate of when to expect a response.

Followup interviews with some of those lawyers produced little clarification for denying access.

Auditor comments reviewed by the AP suggest it would be difficult for the average person to make a simple public records request in many cities, directly contrary to the original intent of the open records law, said Jack Orchard, a Portland attorney who advised the AP on the audit.

“Even attorneys run into this all the time,” Orchard said. “They just don’t want to respond, but an agency is obligated to respond.”

Requests to see concealed handgun permit applications frequently resulted in questioning by the staff or deputies at sheriff’s offices, who told the AP during followup interviews that kind of response was simply a natural reaction to a rare and unusual request involving weapons and documents containing personal information, such as Social Security numbers.

“There could be identity theft,” said Crook County Undersheriff Jim Hensley. “A citizen has a right to privacy.”

The law allows personal information to be redacted, or blacked out, before the document is released. Many sheriff’s offices said that would be their response.

Others said they interpreted the law as preventing release of the weapons permits in any form, including two of the most heavily populated counties in Oregon – Clackamas and Washington counties.

“They are definitely not considered public record in Clackamas County,” said records supervisor Lori Vicars. “If you make a request, then you’d be denied that request in writing.”

Police and government agencies still must be prepared to respond to such requests, said Nisley, the Wasco County district attorney who considers the weapons permits to be public documents.

He said Wasco County staff typically relies on his office for advice, so he tries to make sure clerks and deputies understand the public records law and how to respond.

“I try to tell them you can’t ask them who they are, and you can’t ask them why they want it, but people are human beings, and they ask questions sometimes they maybe shouldn’t ask,” Nisley said.

“We want to make sure we give people whatever it is they’re entitled to, because that’s the purpose of the law,” he said.