Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee stalls two FOIA-related bills after hours of testimony
Summary
SB196 (attorney-fee clarification) and SB208 (definition of 'meeting') drew extended testimony from professors, university counsel, municipal officials and transparency advocates; an amendment to SB196 passed but a motion to pass the bill lacked a second, and SB208 was postponed for further work after debate.
A pair of bills intended to clarify Arkansas open-records and open-meetings law drew extended testimony Thursday but no final committee votes.
Senate Bill 196, sponsored by Senator Dan Sullivan, would explicitly allow court or settlement outcomes that produce records to trigger attorney-fee awards under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Robert Steinbach, a law professor who supported the bill, said it would codify the "catalyst" theory—whereby a requester who prompts disclosure through litigation or settlement is entitled to attorney fees even if the case resolves before a judicial order. "A catalyst makes something happen," Steinbach told the committee as he outlined the rationale.
Opponents warned of unintended consequences. David Curran, associate general counsel for the University of Arkansas System, said Arkansas case law is unclear on whether settlements without a judicial imprimatur support fee awards and argued the bill, as written, could affect ongoing litigation. "We think this bill might ultimately serve as an impediment to negotiated resolutions of FOIA claims and therefore we would urge the committee to vote no," Curran said, adding that the university is involved in related pending proceedings.
John Wilkerson, general counsel for the Municipal League, said the League had voted to oppose SB196 but that a committee amendment—adopted earlier—addressed some concerns. "That does help it," Wilkerson said of the amendment, while still urging caution about routine operational circumstances that should not automatically trigger fee awards.
After debate and questions about scope and retroactivity, Senator Garner moved to pass SB196 as amended; the motion drew discussion but ultimately did not receive a second and the committee took no final action on the bill. The record shows an amendment to SB196 was adopted on a voice vote prior to the presentation, but the full bill was left without a committee vote.
Senate Bill 208, also presented by Senator Sullivan with testimony from transparency advocate Joey McCutcheon, would clarify when communications among public officials constitute a public "meeting." McCutcheon cited multiple cases involving emails and text-message chains—most prominently the Fort Smith cases—and argued the Supreme Court decisions created confusion that only the legislature can resolve. McCutcheon quoted a dissent in the Wade case: "Secrecy is a poison to democracy," and said the proposed statutory definition would bring clarity for local bodies and the public.
Committee members expressed concern about imposing the same requirements on legislators and on the efficiency costs of stricter rules. Several members said they worried routine conversations and required preparatory communications could be chilled. Senator Sullivan agreed to pull SB208 for further work so members could address those questions; the committee stipulated it would not take a vote on SB208 that day and the meeting was adjourned.
Both measures were debated at length and attracted testimony from university counsel, municipal representatives and open-government advocates; committee members asked follow-up questions about retroactivity, pending litigation and ordinary operational burdens on local government before pausing action so sponsors and stakeholders can negotiate language.
