Monday, Feb. 18, 2008
Kinzer: Court bill sees 'no real opposition'
Kevin Wright
Print
E-Mail
AIM
ReprintAn state representative from Olathe wants to redefine state courts’ ability to make decisions behind closed doors and seal documents that may be of interest to the public.
The House Judiciary Committee had a hearing Monday on Rep. Lance Kinzer’s bill, HB 2825, which sets stricter guidelines for when judges can conduct closed hearings and seal proceedings that are pertinent in setting public policy.
He introduced the bill because of concern about privately conducted Kansas Supreme Court cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Phill Kline and the State vs. Anderson, a district judge who was sued by former Attorney General Paul Morrison over Planned Parenthood records.
“It (the bill) has a reasonable chance of making it to the floor,” Kinzer said. “There were suggestions to make tweaks to the bill, but no real opposition.”
The Kansas Press Association and Kansas Broadcast Association testified in the favor of the bill, which would bring Kansas’ law more in line with federal procedures.
Kinzer said federal courts tend to weigh more in favor of keeping filings and proceedings open because of the public’s right to know. He also cites the long history of the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh such matters with a strong public interest, and that if documents are sealed or court proceedings are closed, federal courts must give explanations for such decisions on the record.
“That strong public interest is something the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized time and time again,” he said.
That’s why he modeled the state bill after the federal guidelines.
“All the bill does is take existing federal procedure and put it into (state) statutory form,” he said.
Kinzer points to a federal court’s decision when Kline asked to seal documents he wanted to file in the lawsuit former eight employees brought against him. The “Olathe Eight” case involves employees who sued Kline for wrongful termination after he became Johnson County district attorney.
The documents detailed Paul Morrison’s affair with former administrator Linda Carter in the district attorney’s office and other details about Morrison’s conduct. The federal court ruled that although the information would be embarrassing to the parties listed in the documents, that embarrassment did not outweigh the public interest. Kline withdrew his request and did not file the documents.
Kinzer said this decision — and how the courts came to that decision — was much different from how the Kansas court ruled to close proceedings and seal documents in the Planned Parenthood v. Kline and State v. Anderson cases.
When Planned Parenthood filed a motion to close proceedings and seal documents — just as Morrison did in his case against Shawnee District Court Judge Richard Anderson — the state court sealed the documents and closed the proceedings the day after motions were filed without explanation on the record.
Kinzer said this kind of quick action is detrimental to the public’s interest, especially when these matters relate to public policy decisions.
Planned Parenthood and Morrison filed the motions to force Kline and the judge to turn over all patient records in Planned Parenthood and Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller investigations.
Much is unknown about the proceedings, and the courts have given no explanations for the concealment. Kline has argued — and available case documentation has shown — that none of the medical records identify any particular patient.
Kline contests that the case has been an effort to hinder any investigation into possible crimes committed by Planned Parenthood, and that Morrison helped retrieve the documents to impede criminal charges from being filed.
Under Kinzer’s bill, “a court could not close a hearing or allow pleadings to be filed under seal unless it first made a finding on the record that an identified safety, property or privacy interest predominates the case and outweighs the strong public interest in access to the court record and proceedings.”
Kinzer said neither case should have been closed, especially when state officials are accusing a judge and a law enforcement official of wrongdoing.
“What could be of more interest to the public than that?” he asked.
Kinzer said it is unfortunate the courts are deciding some of the most important public policy issues facing the state without the public knowing how those decisions were made.
“The courts should provide justification for these actions,” he said. “And I hope this bill will provide that clarity.”