A recent audit of public records in Maine found that a little more than half of town halls and schools complied with requests to view public records.

The audit found police departments were the most compliant in granting public access to records. Approximately 70 percent of departments complied, an improvement over a previous audit conducted in 2002.

The Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, which conducted the audit, released a report on it Monday. According to Mal Leary, the president of the Coalition, it’s not an unwillingness to follow the law, but rather a lack of understanding across the state on what constitutes public records and how they should be released

“The audit shows clearly that there are still a lot of areas where municipal officials don’t understand the law and don’t follow it,” said Leary.

The Coalition hasn’t yet voted on what to take to the Legislature, but Leary plans to ask that within six months of being hired all town employees must take an online course in public records.

“I’m not a fan of mandates, but mandated education seems to be the way to go,” said Leary.

According to Mike Starn, director of communications at the Maine Municipal Association, required training for all town employees is not feasible and wouldn’t be effective due to the large number of other laws town employees must understand added to over 500 exceptions to the Freedom of Access Law. Many town employees are part time as well, which would make mandated education harder.

“It’s not to say the Freedom of Information Law is not important. It is,” said Starn. “But we’re a small state with many small towns and a large turnover rate in town halls.”

The Freedom of Access Law tested by auditors in May was established in 1959. It is meant to guarantee that any member of the public can obtain meeting minutes or other documentation of public meetings that are required to be kept by law.

The law covers much more than town meetings; it allows access to any public record in government, police and even schools. A public record can be anything from an e-mail from a town councilor to a daily police log. Any document is considered a public record unless it falls under one of the hundreds of exceptions added to the law since 1959, such as closed-door meetings.

In 2002, the Coalition conducted a similar audit to the one conducted in May that prompted the Maine Legislature to review the law and the validity of all the exceptions, as well as to offer optional training sessions.

The recent follow-up audit was conducted to check progress on how easily the public can request information from the town, schools and police. At town halls auditors asked for tax liens and lawyers fees, the title pages of the crisis management plans at schools and the pursuit policies from police stations. On audit day town managers were also asked for the last three e-mails they were sent.

Auditors were provided with evaluation forms to comment on how they were treated and with scripts on what to say if asked for a reason or identification. If auditors were asked for either identification or a reason, they were instructed to ask whether those were required. They were also told not to lie about involvement with the audit or about their professions. Some auditors were members of the press, but many were local college students and concerned citizens.

Auditors were also told to request information at the beginning of the day to allow officials time to locate records. Under the law, public records are supposed to be released within five days of a request. In some places the public is required to fill out right to know forms. In those cases a written reason is required if the request is denied.

All of this, said Leary, is to maintain a strong democracy.

“There’s nothing more fundamental in democracy than understanding why your government is doing ‘x’ instead of ‘y,'” he said.

Town halls

Of the towns audited, town office compliance to see tax liens was the least successful. Of the 89 offices audited, 59 allowed access to the liens. Of those permitted, 23 percent required auditors to give identification and 37 percent asked auditors why they wanted the information.

Officials are not supposed to be in any way intimidating when releasing information, and asking for identification and reasons is considered as noncompliance with the law. Records are also supposed to be free, and only a reasonable charge for copying pages is allowed under the law.

However, at Old Orchard Beach’s town hall the auditor was charged $12.50 to view the tax liens and lawyer fees.

In Lewiston the auditor was told that identification was required to see the records. In Cornish, the auditor was denied as well as in Frankfort. At the Frankfort Town Hall the clerk would not tell the auditor the reason for denial.

E-mail requests

On the day of the audit, William Shane, town manager in Cumberland, sent an e-mail out on the Maine Municipal Association’s literserv titled “AP sting operation – Freedom of Information” telling other managers that the audit was going on.

Despite that, only 65 percent of managers asked returned the last three emails sent to the town. Of that number, 26 percent required identification and 32 percent asked for a reason, though in most cases reasons were asked out of curiosity not in order to deny access.

One town manager called the process a “witch-hunt,” while others said they deleted the e-mails or received only junk mail that day. Some deleted sections of e-mails according to their lawyers’ advice, and others said town business is not conducted by e-mail.

Many managers were helpful though, sending along emails either without comment or with messages wishing the auditor good luck.

Schools

At schools auditors asked to see and copy only the title page of the crisis management plan to prove that it is updated annually, as required by state law. Of the schools audited, 65 percent complied with the request. Of that percentage, 45 percent asked auditors to identify themselves, and 32 percent required a reason for seeing the document.

Compared to the 2002 audit when superintendents’ contracts were requested, the school districts denied more requests and matched the number requiring identification.

Harry Pringle, a lawyer with Drummond, Woodsum and MacMahon of Portland, the firm that represents the Maine School Management Association, said in the report that low compliance in schools is not a fair indication of their desire to give the public access. He said that schools have to balance protecting students with the public’s right to know.

However, in many districts, auditors indicated they were denied only because secretaries and clerks did not know whether the document was public or not. In many cases superintendents were not in the office and could not be asked for permission.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Law does not say a record may be withheld because a particular official is not present to grant permission to release a document.

Police

Of the three types of offices audited, police departments were the most compliant with the law. Of the stations audited, 70 percent allowed auditors to see the police pursuit policy. Thirty percent asked for identification, and 27 percent wanted a reason before showing the policy.

In 2002 many auditors noted they felt officers were rude or treated them suspiciously. This year, out of all the auditors, a very low number wrote comments about poor treatment.

Also compared to 2002, the compliance rate was actually higher and the number of auditors asked for a reason or identification was lower. The report attributes the higher success rate with the state’s law enforcement’s efforts to educate officers with regular training in public records.

According to Leary, that kind of regular training is exactly what’s needed in order to improve compliance with the law.

“That’s a good step forward,” he said. “But, it’s only a step forward.”

Leary also said he realizes there will always be instances when keeping records private is necessary. The audit and the Coalition, said Leary, are meant to help people access what they have a right to and educate both officials and the public on the law.