Senate bill would require state officers to disclose state-paid travel locations and expenses
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 362 would require specified state officers to keep records of state-paid or state-reimbursed travel locations and expenses and make those records available to any member of the public after the travel occurs; supporters say it advances transparency, while some members raised security and enforcement questions.
Senate Bill 362 would require the offices of specified state officers — the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer and commissioner of insurance — to keep and maintain records of travel locations and expenses paid or reimbursed by the state and to provide those records on request.
Jason, a committee staff member who briefed the Senate Committee on Transparency and Ethics, said the bill makes those records open records and would take effect July 1 if enacted. "These would be open records subject to disclosure upon request," he told the committee. Jason also noted that Open Records Act procedures would apply to requests, including statutory response timeframes.
Sen. Tim Shellenberger, vice president of the Senate and a proponent, said he had attempted to obtain similar travel information from the governor's office and was told it was not public for security reasons. "I just wanna know where you went," Shellenberger said, adding he was not seeking "anything sinister" but wanted taxpayers' reimbursed travel to be transparent.
Committee members raised two recurring concerns. Several asked whether the bill covers travel by staff traveling with the officers; Jason said the bill as drafted applies to the state officers themselves, not their staff. Other members voiced security concerns about publishing itineraries, with one senator asking whether law enforcement practices governing security details or a short disclosure delay (30–60 days) might be appropriate. Jason said he was not sure whether confidentiality rules for security details would bar disclosure after the fact and said the committee would need to look into highway patrol practices.
The committee also discussed enforcement. One senator asked whether the draft includes a penalty or mandamus provision if an officer fails to maintain records; proponents acknowledged no penalty language appears in the draft and said they would consider whether existing remedies under the Open Records Act suffice.
Jason told the panel that, if enacted, the records would be obtainable through the Open Records Act process and that an agency’s failure to comply could be subject to prosecution under that law. The committee closed the hearing on SB 362 with no opponents listed on the live record.
The committee did not take a vote on the bill at this hearing. The next procedural steps would depend on committee scheduling and any amendments the sponsor chooses to offer.
