Editor’s note: This is the sixth in a continuing series on Sunshine in Government, examining open records and meetings laws and their implementation in Fairhope.

So far this year, Fairhope has changed three open government policies in the city, resulting in greater access to public records, city information and local laws.

From February through May, the city lowered the cost of obtaining public records; made City Council agenda packets available to the public prior to council meetings; and put the city’s Code of Ordinances online.

However, five months after the overall public records policy was changed verbally by Mayor Tim Kant in early February, that new policy has not been put in any formal writing, such as an ordinance or resolution.

And two months after the specific policy of providing copies of council packets to the public prior to council meetings went into effect, that new policy has also not been put in writing, although such an intention was stated during the April 14 council meeting, as reflected in the minutes of that meeting.

Both City Council President Bob Gentle and Mayor Tim Kant said recently that the city should develop a written public records policy for the city.

“We need a written policy so the public and future administrations will know what the policy is,” Gentle said. “The policy needs to follow guidelines in the law and recommended by groups like the Alabama League of Municipalities.”

Kant said he asked the city clerk to research what other cities have done, and for the city attorney to consider its legal aspects.

“I have also asked the council president (for his input) so the (city clerk) can incorporate it (in her report),” Kant said.

Kant indicated that some provisions of the changes he made verbally in February should not be changed in a future written policy, for example, that the first 25 pages of public documents remain free.

According to the old policy, the public was charged not only a per-page cost of 25 cents per page, but also an hourly fee for the city employee’s time in researching and copying the documents. In addition, the estimated cost of copies plus the employee’s time engaged in research and reproduction had to be paid in advance.

The city also charged not only for copying public documents, but also for reviewing them, in an amount equal to the employee’s hourly wage while supervising the resident who reviewed the documents, according to the old written policy.

“There will be no charges for materials copied for information requests up to the first 25 pages,” former City Clerk Geniece Johnson said in March, referring to the new records policy. “After the first 25 pages, there will be a (25 cents) per page charge. With regard to all information requests, no employee’s time will be used for research, until changed by the City Council.”

A local nonpartisan group said the old policy made obtaining documents costly and difficult and praised the city when it made the verbal changes earlier this year.

That nonprofit organization based in Fairhope now believes it is time for the new policies to be put in writing.

“We have talked about this a lot,” said Harvey Joanning, president of Citizens for Responsible Government. “A written policy obviously needs to be in place, which should be on the city’s Web site.”

Joanning agreed the city should research how other cities have handled open records policies. He said an independent group could also do the research.

“Our group would be happy to do that if asked,” he said. “After the research is done, the city should have a public forum to solicit information from stakeholders about what they think should be in the policy and what information should be available online.”

The city’s prior policy was changed verbally by Kant following a Feb. 5 article in the Press-Register about the high costs of obtaining records from the city.

But the policy change was not widely known until a March article in the Fairhope Courier reported that Kant made the changes in early February. A later Courier article reported that more than a month later, neither Gentle, nor the Fairhope Police Department, knew the policy changes had occurred. A spokesman with the FPD cited higher costs for public records that were no longer in effect.

“Now that we know about it, the department will follow the policy,” the FPD spokesman said at the time, after being informed of the new policy.

But more than two months after the policy change occurred, the old written policy was still on the city’s Web site, the Fairhope Courier reported in April. Later that month, the city removed from its Web site the “request for public records” form containing the old written policy.

Now, two months after the written policy was removed from the Web site, the city still does not have a written public records policy reflecting the changes made five months ago. The effect is that while Fairhope has lowered the costs of obtaining public records and made it easier to follow the action of City Council meetings, the city no longer has a written public records policy.

In the meantime, it is unclear which city government offices and employees are familiar with the current status of the city’s public records policies.

Last week, in responding to a public records request, a city employee searched the city’s Web site looking for a copy of the request form that was removed in April and no longer effective as of early February, which she planned to have the requester fill out for the records.

She said that she did not know the form had been removed from the city’s Web site, nor that it was no longer being used because the policy had changed.

To date, not only has the city not put the new policy in writing, it has also not issued any formal announcement about the policy change. Any information about Fairhope having a new public records policy has come through local newspapers.

However, the city did announce at a council meeting and in a news release in early May when it put the city’s Code of Ordinances online.

“The city should be commended for changing its policies,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va. “It would now be in the city’s best interests to finalize a user-friendly written policy so that citizens have a clear idea of what’s available, where it’s available, and how much it’s going to cost. This saves time and aggravation for the city and the requester.”