Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate in Annapolis over new tools to block 'frivolous' public-records requests
Summary
House Bill 806 would allow custodians to seek faster relief against frivolous, vexatious or abusive Public Information Act (PIA) requests, including a direct path to circuit court and clearer statutory remedies. Custodians, sheriffs and universities supported the bill as a remedy to repeated harassing requests; press groups, civil liberties
Patrick Hughes of the Office of the Attorney General told the committee House Bill 806 would add the word "abusive" to PIA exemptions and allow custodians to seek (1) circuit-court orders in urgent cases and (2) clearer relief from the Public Information Act Compliance Board (PICB) including dismissal authority for frivolous complaints. "Frivolous and vexatious PI requests are rare, but when they target an agency, they can disrupt the operations of government," Hughes said, and argued the current PICB process can be slow and lack enforcement power.
Supporters including the Maryland Sheriffs' Association, Washington County Sheriff's Office and representatives of the University of Maryland described cases of repetitive or harassing requests that consumed staff time and, they said, justified narrow new remedies. "When you receive 86 requests in a 12-month period from one person, that is abusive," said Laura Anderson Wright, the university's public records officer, and asked the committee for tools to protect the "pipeline" of ordinary PIA requests.
Journalism and civil-rights groups, including the Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association, the ACLU and Common Cause Maryland, strongly opposed the bill as written. Rebecca Snyder, the press association's executive director, said the bill is an "oversized reaction" to a small portion of PICB caseload and warned it would chill public access. Testimony and questioning focused on core unresolved issues: whether the bill's language is too subjective (terms such as "abusive" and "frivolous"), which remedies are proportionate, whether a ban on future requests could be indefinite, and how to preserve the public's right to know.
Committee members suggested the sponsor convene a stakeholder workgroup to narrow the measure and produce objective criteria and guardrails. The committee did receive written objections from press groups and requested the PICB decisions and related court filings cited by witnesses for the record; the attorney general's office and the sponsor agreed to further negotiations.
