Colorado lawmakers criticized for limiting public record access

In Colorado, a debate is growing over lawmakers' transparency with the public. Critics argue that new laws are making it harder for people and the media to access public records. Supporters of these laws insist they aim to simplify access for government officials. Jeff Roberts, head of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, raises concerns beyond record access. He points out that recent policies could exempt state lawmakers from open meeting laws. Last year, a new law exempted lawmakers after a judge ruled they had violated the previous law. This change allows lawmakers to discuss bills through private messages without public oversight. Critics argue that these changes led to closed-door meetings, limiting public access and scrutiny. House Speaker Julie McCluskie defended this by stating that no formal voting was happening in those meetings, but many feel decisions were made without public knowledge. Proposed legislation, like House Bill 1242, aimed to restore full transparency. However, it was blocked by a party-line vote from the Democratic majority. Critics worry the current laws erode trust with the public. One bill, Senate Bill 77, seeks to extend the time public agencies have to fulfill records requests, from three days to five or more. Its sponsor, Sen. Cathy Kipp, argues that the volume of requests has surged since the COVID pandemic. However, critics say this could further delay public access to information. Roberts highlights the rising costs and fees for accessing records, which can make it unaffordable for many. He notes that some requests can total thousands of dollars, effectively limiting public knowledge. Another area of concern is House Bill 1041, which could keep student athlete compensation deals secret from the public. Supporters say it helps universities compete fairly but critics argue it reduces transparency. Overall, the legislative trend worries many advocates for transparency. They fear that new laws prioritize government convenience over public access to information, diminishing the public’s right to know.