Panel backs bill routing contractor open‑records requests to government custodian

A state and local government subcommittee voted to advance legislation that would require open‑records requests arising from work paid with public funds to be made to the government entity that contracted the work rather than to the private contractor.

The measure, presented by Senator Ginn, clarifies that when records become “public records” because public funds are used, the records request should be directed to the public custodian. The committee adopted a clarifying amendment from Representative Montahan that conditions the private‑party production duty on "prescribed statutory guidelines, or as defined in the agreement, whichever comes later." The amendment passed and the bill was then approved by the subcommittee for full committee consideration.

Senator Ginn told the committee the bill responds to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling this summer that left ambiguity about whether private contractors performing work for public entities are subject to the state’s Open Records Act. “The reason it's an open record is because it's public funds that are being spent for public purpose,” Ginn said, describing negotiations with business groups and press‑freedom organizations to refine the language.

Ruchi Patel of the Georgia Municipal Association said the association supports the bill and that existing records‑retention schedules under state law were not altered by the proposal. “Some records are transitory. You can throw them out as soon as you're done with them. Some records are required to be kept for a really long period of time,” Patel said, noting that contracts typically include retention provisions such as keeping records for three years after termination.

Committee members probed how the bill would affect retention obligations for private contractors and who would be liable if a contractor failed to produce records. Representative Sanchez asked how a citizen could enforce a request if a private contractor did not meet record obligations; Patel replied that the enforcement would be against the government custodian and that the bill does not change existing penalties under the Open Records Act (cited in committee as 50‑18‑73). Committee members clarified that the bill is intended to funnel requests through government entities so that those entities—rather than private businesses unfamiliar with open‑records obligations—handle compliance.

Representative Montahan’s amendment, which inserts the phrase "as long as it's within the prescribed statutory guidelines, or as defined in the agreement, whichever comes later," drew agreement from Senator Ginn, who said it would not create problems for the bill. The committee voted in favor of the amendment and then voted to advance the bill; the chair said the bill will be considered in full committee the following day.

The subcommittee record shows discussion about trade‑secret and other existing exemptions and that the bill does not alter the underlying definition of public records or impose new universal retention periods on contractors. No fiscal figures or specific implementation dates were presented during the subcommittee hearing.

The bill’s language and the adopted amendment will appear when the measure is considered by the full committee.