Let freedom ring

Our view: Fighting, to the detriment of students
July 22, 2014
Laughter an essential part of our spiritual lives
July 22, 2014
Our view: Fighting, to the detriment of students
July 22, 2014
Laughter an essential part of our spiritual lives
July 22, 2014

A federal jury has decided that the chief of the Houma Police Department violated the civil rights of a cop, Sgt. Kyle Faulk, by relieving him of special responsibilities as a result of making public statements against legislation the chief – and his boss, the parish president – favored.


The bill in question removed the position of police chief from the rules regarding Civil Service, allowing the parish president to hand-pick a candidate rather than have multiple candidates endure the rigors of civil service competitive requirements.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the law which allows this, the bigger point is that enough of an argument for retribution against Faulk was made that the jury decided he should be awarded money.

In a different sense however, since we are on the topic of the First Amendment (that’s the one that covers free speech as well as freedom of religion and of the press) it’s a pretty good time to wail about the sad state of affairs regarding access to information in Louisiana.


At one time this state had one of the strictest public records laws in the country, the product of dangers that became evident during the governorship of one Huey Long, whose greatest misdeeds were often carried out well away from public view.

But year after year the law gets diluted, usually by the addition of “exemptions” for various things people with special interests think should be protected.

A big exemption that exists is the broad and sweeping permission given to hospital boards. These publicly-appointed board members – and the administrators they supervise and direct – are allowed to withhold all kinds of information under the classification of marketing and planning.


So if a quasi-public hospital wants to spend a cool million or two on new technology, the facts will likely be hidden from the public, which is barred from board meetings when such things are discussed.

If a crime is committed and an arrest made, key facts can be withheld from the public because law enforcement agencies, within the law, are given broad discretion to do so. Video of a police incident, for example, may easily be squelched because it concerns an ongoing investigation or pending criminal case.

Notice use of the word “may,” which is permissive. Every so often a video or audio recording may get released, because someone in a law enforcement agency decides it is suits their purpose to let everyone watch.


This in itself is not a bad thing, necessarily. There are those cases where disclosure of certain things could jeopardize a case. But in many cases a practical view of the situation makes clear that it would not.

Likewise, when a crime occurs and other agencies – say a 911 district or some other entity – has a record relating to it, they will routinely turn down requests.

They are certainly allowed to do so, but they are not required to.


And therein lies the problem.

The Louisiana constitution and related statutes say records are presumed to be public barring a showing that there is a good reason not to let them be so.

There are two key problems that evince themselves in such instances. One is that the public officials know they are safer by not releasing information or records. This is because the mindset is stuck on keeping whatever can be secret a secret when possible, and it is not healthy.


Public officials should default to what the state constitution says, a presumption of openness, with the need to prove to themselves or anyone else asking why specifically a given document or record must remain secret. But there are not a lot of indications that this is done.

To their credit, officials at Houma PD worked well with reporters seeking information regarding a controversial shooting within their jurisdiction recently. The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff, Jerry Larpenter, released video of a hate crime committed in a Houma bar, and not in a self-serving way.

But there are also situations where information that could have been public was kept squashed by some agencies, and more is the pity for all of us. Newspaper lobbyists have concerned themselves more with issues relating to newspaper revenue than the free flow of information during legislative sessions.


A big part of the problem is that officials know newspapers, one of the bulwarks and chief advocate of the public’s right to know, have become less willing to hire lawyers to push the issues. Lazy reporting is another. We have, many of us, for too long relied on public records laws rather than good old-fashioned enterprise reporting to get us to our facts.

Agencies in Terrebonne and Lafourche have both made strides toward transparency, but more can always be done. And hopefully progress will continue.