ID number: 68417
The Negative Bound of FOIA
The Constitution and statutes of State of Georgia highlight a core belief that openness is the best mode of governance, both to ensure accountability and inspire trust. In this light, Georgia’s Sunshine Laws grant sweeping access to the meetings and documents of the state government. The law’s breadth and depth are some of the most comprehensive nationally, reflecting the ideals of the those who penned the constitution. However, their broadness highlights questions of privacy and independence. According to Georgia case law, an organization acting as a contractor for the government can itself be treated as a public agency under the state’s FOIA regulations. As I will argue, this interpretation of …show more content…
Georgia’s definition of agencies is uniquely broad , reflecting the law’s intent to preserve and promote the principles of openness written into the state Constitution. In Red & Black Publishing vs. Board of Regents (1993), a split Court declared it constitutional for Red & Black Publishing to access University of Georgia student court records because the student court is a function of the Board of Regents and thus subject to FOIA. While the Court recognized that this might reveal sensitive, uncomfortable, and at times damaging information, it ruled to protect the transparency and confidence paramount to trust building. Hackworth vs. Board of Education (1994) affirmed this, ruling that bus drivers for public school districts act as the vehicle for the government to perform its duty and are thus a public agency. This broad definition of “agency” aligns the law’s application with its intent to allow access to information regarding operations and responsibilities of public agencies to evaluate spending efficiency and promote confidence in government. If access was denied, the intent of the Open Records Act would not be fully …show more content…
U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit receiving funding from the organic foods industry, requested thousands of emails from researchers at state universities with ties to the secretive company, exposing email chains and money trails that detailed an extensive network of research and advocacy. The New York Times published an article evaluating the findings, explaining how prominent academics, such as Professor Wayne Parrott of University of Georgia, are involved not only in exploratory research in agrichemistry, but also in promoting the findings to policy makers. Many of these academic were recruited due to their prior advocacy- advocacy independent of corporate influence and based in their interpretation of the research. By channeling this activism, Monsanto bolsters their case and gains credibility while providing a platform for the scientists’ work. However, Monsanto’s monopoly of specific crop strains has rendered them a public enemy in the field of anti-GMO and food safely advocacy, causing public interest groups to attack affiliated professors who may be using public funds to advance Monsanto’s
The Negative Bound of FOIA
The Constitution and statutes of State of Georgia highlight a core belief that openness is the best mode of governance, both to ensure accountability and inspire trust. In this light, Georgia’s Sunshine Laws grant sweeping access to the meetings and documents of the state government. The law’s breadth and depth are some of the most comprehensive nationally, reflecting the ideals of the those who penned the constitution. However, their broadness highlights questions of privacy and independence. According to Georgia case law, an organization acting as a contractor for the government can itself be treated as a public agency under the state’s FOIA regulations. As I will argue, this interpretation of …show more content…
Georgia’s definition of agencies is uniquely broad , reflecting the law’s intent to preserve and promote the principles of openness written into the state Constitution. In Red & Black Publishing vs. Board of Regents (1993), a split Court declared it constitutional for Red & Black Publishing to access University of Georgia student court records because the student court is a function of the Board of Regents and thus subject to FOIA. While the Court recognized that this might reveal sensitive, uncomfortable, and at times damaging information, it ruled to protect the transparency and confidence paramount to trust building. Hackworth vs. Board of Education (1994) affirmed this, ruling that bus drivers for public school districts act as the vehicle for the government to perform its duty and are thus a public agency. This broad definition of “agency” aligns the law’s application with its intent to allow access to information regarding operations and responsibilities of public agencies to evaluate spending efficiency and promote confidence in government. If access was denied, the intent of the Open Records Act would not be fully …show more content…
U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit receiving funding from the organic foods industry, requested thousands of emails from researchers at state universities with ties to the secretive company, exposing email chains and money trails that detailed an extensive network of research and advocacy. The New York Times published an article evaluating the findings, explaining how prominent academics, such as Professor Wayne Parrott of University of Georgia, are involved not only in exploratory research in agrichemistry, but also in promoting the findings to policy makers. Many of these academic were recruited due to their prior advocacy- advocacy independent of corporate influence and based in their interpretation of the research. By channeling this activism, Monsanto bolsters their case and gains credibility while providing a platform for the scientists’ work. However, Monsanto’s monopoly of specific crop strains has rendered them a public enemy in the field of anti-GMO and food safely advocacy, causing public interest groups to attack affiliated professors who may be using public funds to advance Monsanto’s