Enacted nearly 40 years ago, Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act is a vital tool for residents of this state to track what their government is doing and how their tax dollars are being spent.

At the local level, it gives citizens the proper oversight to ensure both staff and elected leaders of school districts, townships, cities and counties are doing their jobs honestly and effectively.

But when it comes to state government, there are glaring exemptions – our state lawmakers and governor are not subject to the law’s open records requirements.

This might not be news to you, as there are frequent reminders that these elected officials need not cooperate with a member of the public seeking information from their offices.

Most recently, officials in the state House of Representatives denied access to an investigative report into misconduct by now-former state Reps. Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat, who were accused of misusing public funds in part to cover up their affair.

It baffles this editorial board that state legislators would impose such a policy on all other public bodies in the state except themselves.

Sure, these aren’t the same lawmakers who passed the law in 1976, but every Legislature since then has had the opportunity to strengthen it and has not.

Not all records are sealed. Under the state Constitution, all financial records pertaining to taxpayer expenditures must be released, allowing any member of the public to inspect the state budget and similar documents. But correspondence between lawmakers, as an example, is not open to public review.

Legislators say their discussions often center on sensitive topics and to be most effective should not be subject to open records laws. In some instances, we agree, but a blanket exemption affords them all kinds of protection from public scrutiny.

A series of reforms passed by lawmakers in 2014 went into effect this year aimed at giving the Freedom of Information Act more teeth. Those changes set uniform costs that public bodies can assess citizens to recoup their costs for producing records.

There were also revisions made to the process by which a person or organization may challenge the denial of a request, further compelling a public body to comply with the law.

Whether the changes truly improved the law is up for debate and until the policy covers all public bodies and officials, it isn’t sufficient.

We agree there ought to be certain exemptions, but we can talk about those once light legally shines on the Legislature and our governor.

– The Petoskey News-Review