Oregon’s public records law should come with a disclaimer. It should be like one of those car ads on the radio where after you hear about the deal, the announcer goes rapid fire through all the conditions that can make you wonder how good a deal it really is.

That’s because Oregon law discriminates against people on access to public records.

If you are rich or have a rich backer, the fees for getting access to public records are no problem. If you are not rich or work for a company that makes slim profits or no profits, Oregon’s law essentially says you are not worthy of the same level of access to records that are purportedly public.

Oregon’s Public Records Advisory Council is developing legislation aimed at improving the equality of access.

Children get public education in Oregon, no matter what their socio-economic status. You get to check books out of the public library, no matter what your socio-economic status. But access to public records, that is based on your ability to pay. Of course, a lot of things are like that. It’s hard for most people to find the time and money to pay a lot of attention to what’s going on in local, state or national government and try to influence it. Being rich helps. Being poor certainly does not.

A police report. Details about new development in your neighborhood. Plans for trails along the river. Those are all things the public has a right to. All those things are usually pretty easy to get and at low or no cost.

What if you want records that show the negotiations with big tech company over home much water it will use in its new plant in Hood River? What if you want all the records that show how the police interacted leading up to a protest at Pilot Butte? What if you are worried your government is doing something it shouldn’t? Do you think getting access to those records would be easy or cheap? Most likely not. People with money would be able to at least try. The barrier of fees would stop some from even trying.

Oregon’s Public Records Advisory Council has been holding meetings and listening to testimony about this issue for months. Last week, it talked about what possible legislation might say.

One big change: Requester tiers. The type of requester would change what could be charged. Commercial interests would have to pay for the actual cost of any searching, duplication and review of documents. Media and public interest organizations, educational and non-commercial scientific organizations would only have to pay for duplication. Anyone else, including members of the general public, would have to pay for search and duplication.

One additional requirement that is being considered is no fees for a requester’s own files or records. Another is that fees would be waived or reduced by at least 25% if the requester is a member of the media and the request is made in the public interest. There’s much more to the proposal than we have listed. You can see a draft in very preliminary form here, tinyurl.com/PRACchanges.

A clear outcome of such changes is that costs of public records would shift from individual members of the public seeking information to government, which of course, is funded by the public as a whole. It may also increase demand for records because requesters would not have to pay as much. That may increase the burden on government staff with more requests. But if they are public records, shouldn’t the law ensure all the members of the public has reasonable access to them?

You can see more about the Public Records Advisory Council here, tinyurl.com/ORprac.