As the General Assembly session lurched toward its tumultuous end in late June, open-records advocates watched in dismay when two key components of a House bill were scuttled at the last minute.

The advocates heralded the bill as advancing the public’s right to know what their police departments and other public agencies are doing. Average Rhode Islanders would be able to get records without having to say who they were and why they want them. Public bodies would have less time to produce records, and face stiffer fines if they don’t. All in all, they said, the legislation sponsored by Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, would bring Rhode Island in line with other New England states that have stronger open records laws.

"It's an important bill because Rhode Island has done nothing about its Access to Public Records Law in the last 10 years," said Ajello.

Now those advocates say they will pull their support if the bill to amend the act is not "made whole" again when the House reconvenes this month. Ajello said she remains optimistic that the two provisions could be restored after "dispelling misconceptions" about the bill. If not, she said she would heed the advocacy groups "who feel with these two pieces out of the bill, we would be better not to do anything this year about public records."

At issue are two provisions that were deleted from Ajello's House bill. One would have clarified that initial police narrative reports of an arrest -- the details about what led up to an arrest -- are public. The other would clarify that a successful open records complainant need not actually obtain a formal court judgment in order to obtain legal fees spent pursuing documents from public officials. The bill passed by the Senate, sponsored by Sen. J. Michael Lenihan, D-East Greenwich, includes those provisions.

"The organizations that have been promoting this bill since January are all agreed that the two provisions that were stripped from the bill are critical components of the legislation," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. "And all agree that the bill as amended by the House is unacceptable. And if the language cannot be restored, we just expect to be back next year, with a stronger bill."

Brown and others -- including the attorney general's office -- say existing law requires police to provide initial arrest narratives. But Brown said the proposed legislation makes that explicit, to eliminate confusion, "because we have had many experiences where local police departments have refused to hand over the initial narrative report."

By eliminating that language, "the House has given ammunition to police departments to argue that the language in the law was not intended to include access to the initial narratives," Brown said. "And that's what makes it so dangerous."

The other open records advocates are ACCESS/RI, Common Cause and the Rhode Island Press Association. The state attorney general's office says it would support now supports either the House or Senate version.

During the House debate, opponents who prevailed in striking the narrative language from the bill expressed security concerns, or potential harm to someone's reputation who is initially charged, but later proven innocent. The amended version passed 46-22.

Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, called it "stupid government", and said he has "a real problem with someone asking for information and not identifying who they are."

Rep. Anastasia P. Williams, D-Providence, said on Friday that initial police narrative reports "are not always a true, accurate record, because sometimes there are officers who don't like an individual -- because maybe that individual rubbed them the wrong way … It might be someone you see hanging out too much, or a kid they consider a smart aleck, or it might be a good kid hanging with the wrong kinds of kids, racial profiling kind of stuff" that she said sometimes happens in poorer neighborhoods. She alleged that sometimes police "have written up reports that are so fabricated that it automatically makes that individual guilty. We have too much of that going on."

(In 1996, Williams was charged with simple assault in a dispute with a Providence police officer at the Wiggin Village housing complex; the charges were dismissed. Williams, who is black, said at the time the color of her skin "without a question" played a role in her arrest.)

Senator Lenihan, who has been working to improve open records law for 10 years, said the fight isn't over.

"We are still going to make an effort to have the bills considered in both chambers as they were originally submitted," he said. Both bills are now in the House.

"If she's successful she [Ajello] would amend her bill to match mine, pass it in the House and send it back to the Senate," said Lenihan. "At that point, both chambers would pass the legislation and it would go to the governor for consideration." (Carcieri vetoed a similar bill last year.)

And if not this year?

"The novelty has worn off," he said, "but I'm determined to get something meaningful passed, so we'll keep trying."

BOTH THE Senate and House bills would reduce from 10 to 7 days the time in which public bodies must comply with mostopen records requests, and reduce from 30 to 20 business days the amount of time they would have to comply with more burdensome requests. It would stiffen fines (up to a maximum of $5,000 from $1,000 for "knowing and willful" violations of the law, and a fine of up to $2,000 for "reckless violations") if they don't cooperate.

Police would be required to release basic arrest information within 24 hours, including the name, home address, date of birth, gender and race, charge or charges, date, time and name of the arresting officer.

Certain municipal records that had not previously been considered public would be made public, such as information about payments received by employees who were terminated or left their jobs.

The legislation would clarify that both individuals and organizations - such as newspapers or citizens groups, can be requesters of records. And, public bodies would have to certify that individuals handling records requests have been trained in the statute's requirements.

"The House bill still has a lot to advance openness, and a lot to recommend itself," said Mike Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick Lynch. "Those advances constitute the baby we think shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater."

Michael Field, a special assistant attorney general, said the office for 10 years has said initial police narrative reports are public, although subject to some redaction.

Asked what's to stop a police department from refusing to release an initial narrative report if the language is not codified he said: "I haven't had any law enforcement agencies tell us or tell anybody in this office, that what we have instructed them is incorrect."

Last week, two police departments -- Cranston and North Smithfield -- refused to provide The Journal arrest and/or narrative reports in the case of a North Smithfield man charged with numerous counts of child rape and child molestation.

"The bigger point is there's no consistency to how it's being released," said Scott Pickering, president of the Rhode Island Press Association.

Though the bulk of the amended House bill "really works for the good of Rhode Island citizens," Pickering said, "unfortunately we'd have to stand opposed because it would retard access to arrest records in Rhode Island."

Without language clarifying that initial police narrative reports are public, Pickering said, "The new standard for what's released to the public would be this short, half-page outline Read-only body

As the General Assembly session lurched toward its tumultuous end in late June, open-records advocates watched in dismay when two key components of a House bill were scuttled at the last minute.

The advocates heralded the bill as advancing the public's right to know what their police departments and other public agencies are doing. Average Rhode Islanders would be able to get records without having to say who they were and why they want them. Public bodies would have less time to produce records, and face stiffer fines if they don't. All in all, they said, the legislation sponsored by Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, would bring Rhode Island in line with other New England states that have stronger open records laws.

"It's an important bill because Rhode Island has done nothing about its Access to Public Records Law in the last 10 years," said Ajello.

Now those advocates say they will pull their support if the bill to amend the act is not "made whole" again when the House reconvenes this month. Ajello said she remains optimistic that the two provisions could be restored after "dispelling misconceptions" about the bill. If not, she said she would heed the advocacy groups "who feel with these two pieces out of the bill, we would be better not to do anything this year about public records."

At issue are two provisions that were deleted from Ajello's House bill. One would have clarified that initial police narrative reports of an arrest -- the details about what led up to an arrest -- are public. The other would clarify that a successful open records complainant need not actually obtain a formal court judgment in order to obtain legal fees spent pursuing documents from public officials. The bill passed by the Senate, sponsored by Sen. J. Michael Lenihan, D-East Greenwich, includes those provisions.

"The organizations that have been promoting this bill since January are all agreed that the two provisions that were stripped from the bill are critical components of the legislation," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. "And all agree that the bill as amended by the House is unacceptable. And if the language cannot be restored, we just expect to be back next year, with a stronger bill."

Brown and others -- including the attorney general's office -- say existing law requires police to provide initial arrest narratives. But Brown said the proposed legislation makes that explicit, to eliminate confusion, "because we have had many experiences where local police departments have refused to hand over the initial narrative report."

By eliminating that language, "the House has given ammunition to police departments to argue that the language in the law was not intended to include access to the initial narratives," Brown said. "And that's what makes it so dangerous."

The other open records advocates are ACCESS/RI, Common Cause and the Rhode Island Press Association. The state attorney general's office says it would support now supports either the House or Senate version.

During the House debate, opponents who prevailed in striking the narrative language from the bill expressed security concerns, or potential harm to someone's reputation who is initially charged, but later proven innocent. The amended version passed 46-22.

Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, called it "stupid government", and said he has "a real problem with someone asking for information and not identifying who they are."

Rep. Anastasia P. Williams, D-Providence, said on Friday that initial police narrative reports "are not always a true, accurate record, because sometimes there are officers who don't like an individual -- because maybe that individual rubbed them the wrong way … It might be someone you see hanging out too much, or a kid they consider a smart aleck, or it might be a good kid hanging with the wrong kinds of kids, racial profiling kind of stuff" that she said sometimes happens in poorer neighborhoods. She alleged that sometimes police "have written up reports that are so fabricated that it automatically makes that individual guilty. We have too much of that going on."

(In 1996, Williams was charged with simple assault in a dispute with a Providence police officer at the Wiggin Village housing complex; the charges were dismissed. Williams, who is black, said at the time the color of her skin "without a question" played a role in her arrest.)

Senator Lenihan, who has been working to improve open records law for 10 years, said the fight isn't over.

"We are still going to make an effort to have the bills considered in both chambers as they were originally submitted," he said. Both bills are now in the House.

"If she's successful she [Ajello] would amend her bill to match mine, pass it in the House and send it back to the Senate," said Lenihan. "At that point, both chambers would pass the legislation and it would go to the governor for consideration." (Carcieri vetoed a similar bill last year.)

And if not this year?

"The novelty has worn off," he said, "but I'm determined to get something meaningful passed, so we'll keep trying."

BOTH THE Senate and House bills would reduce from 10 to 7 days the time in which public bodies must comply with most open records requests, and reduce from 30 to 20 business days the amount of time they would have to comply with more burdensome requests. It would stiffen fines (up to a maximum of $5,000 from $1,000 for "knowing and willful" violations of the law, and a fine of up to $2,000 for "reckless violations") if they don't cooperate.

Police would be required to release basic arrest information within 24 hours, including the name, home address, date of birth, gender and race, charge or charges, date, time and name of the arresting officer.

Certain municipal records that had not previously been considered public would be made public, such as information about payments received by employees who were terminated or left their jobs.

The legislation would clarify that both individuals and organizations - such as newspapers or citizens groups, can be requesters of records. And, public bodies would have to certify that individuals handling records requests have been trained in the statute's requirements.

"The House bill still has a lot to advance openness, and a lot to recommend itself," said Mike Healey, spokesman for Attorney General Patrick Lynch. "Those advances constitute the baby we think shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater."

Michael Field, a special assistant attorney general, said the office for 10 years has said initial police narrative reports are public, although subject to some redaction.

Asked what's to stop a police department from refusing to release an initial narrative report if the language is not codified he said: "I haven't had any law enforcement agencies tell us or tell anybody in this office, that what we have instructed them is incorrect."

Last week, two police departments -- Cranston and North Smithfield -- refused to provide The Journal arrest and/or narrative reports in the case of a North Smithfield man charged with numerous counts of child rape and child molestation.

"The bigger point is there's no consistency to how it's being released," said Scott Pickering, president of the Rhode Island Press Association.

Though the bulk of the amended House bill "really works for the good of Rhode Island citizens," Pickering said, "unfortunately we'd have to stand opposed because it would retard access to arrest records in Rhode Island."

Without language clarifying that initial police narrative reports are public, Pickering said, "The new standard for what's released to the public would be this short, half-page outline (name, date, gender, etc. - to be released within 24 hours) of why the police arrested somebody … And that's not enough information for the public to understand why the police are taking that extreme action -- why they take people off the streets put them behind bars."

The Assembly considered two other bills related to public records. One bill, passed by both chambers and headed to Governor Carcieri, would allow domestic violence victims or people in their households to have their names removed from voting records. The other, which remains in limbo, would prohibit police departments from identifying officers involved in fatal shootings until the conclusion of a grand jury investigation.

kziner@projo.com/(401)277-7375 /