Survey: Lawmakers support more open records

State lawmakers who responded to a survey about the openness of the state’s personnel law say state residents should be able to find out more about the employees who work for them.

More than a third of the state’s 170 lawmakers responded to the survey, conducted by The News & Observer and Elon University’s Sunshine Center. A majority of the 70 respondents said that more information should be available about employees who commit crimes on the job or are fired for misconduct. Most lawmakers also said the state should make available salary and employment histories.

The personnel law keeps such information from public view.

Several lawmakers who wanted the information public said it was a simple matter of giving the public important data about the employees whose salaries are paid with public money. Others also said making it public might serve as a deterrent to bad behavior.

“I believe this information should be available to reinforce to the public the idea of transparency in government,” said state Sen. John Snow, a Murphy Democrat and a former judge.

Those in the minority said releasing more than the information related to an employee’s current salary and position would unfairly infringe upon their privacy rights. They particularly disagreed with telling the public about employees who were disciplined but not fired.

“Public shaming doesn’t create good employees; it creates fearful employees,” said Rep. Verla Insko, a Chapel Hill Democrat.

Most lawmakers said hiring information, such as applications, resumes and letters of recommendations should not be public, which is currently how the personnel law stands. They said making it public would drive away good candidates and make it harder for government officials to get honest, in-depth appraisals from references.

“I think making this type of information public would or could put a chill on the hopefully unbiased employment process,” said Rep. George Cleveland, a Jacksonville Republican.

There was no clear consensus among those surveyed as to whether the personnel law was too restrictive or fine as it currently exists. None of the respondents, however, said that the state’s personnel law was too open.