FAIRHOPE, Ala. — Editor’s note: This is the third in a continuing series on Sunshine in Government, examining state and local public records and open meetings laws and their implementation in Fairhope.

Sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

More than a month after Mayor Tim Kant verbally changed the city’s open records policy — reducing some costs and fees for copying public information — Fairhope’s written “Terms and Conditions for Handling Public Information Requests” remains unchanged.

Those policy changes followed media accounts of expensive copying costs and access to public information difficulties at the city’s police department.

Kant verbally changed the city’s open records policy in late February, City Clerk Geniece Johnson said March 20.

“There will be no charges for materials copied for information requests up to the first 25 pages,” she said that day. “After the first 25 pages, there will be a (25 cents) per page charge…With regards to all information requests, … no employee’s time will be charged for research, until changed by the City Council.”

The new policy also changed specific procedures and costs for copying at the police department.

But when contacted March 21, a police spokesman said they were not familiar with the changes, citing higher amounts still being charged for public information.

Now that we know about it, the department will follow the policy, the spokesman said that day.

But for those not familiar with the new policy, a person visiting the city’s Web site as of press time would think the following written policy is still the law in Fairhope: “For reproduction of records, the city will assess a per page charge as authorized by laws for reproductions costs (currently, 25 cents per page) and will charge a sum equal to an employee’s total salary allowance per hour times the actual number of hours engaged in research and reproduction.”

The clerk’s office said March 21 that the current written policy would be changed in the near future, and the new verbal policy would be used for requested materials and/or documents.

City Attorney Marion “Tut” Wynne said, in his opinion, the new open records policy as verbally established by the mayor was valid, but the City Council could also play a role in the process. He did say the written policy should reflect the changes made by the mayor.

“It would be helpful, but not necessary, if (the new policy) was approved by the council,” he said. “The language of the request form should be consistent with the new policy.”

While not necessary, in his opinion, Wynne said, the council could set the open records policy by ordinance or resolution.

At the March 24 council meeting, several members were displeased with how the mayor changed the policy without first contacting the council, but it is unclear what action, if any, the council will take regarding it.

“I understood we were going to look at what we’ve got and determine if we should keep the current policy or initiate a new policy, so that information is, in fact, available to the public,” Councilman Dan Stankoski said Monday. “I don’t know what those changes would be. But I believe we are going to look at it.”

A newspaper story in early February reported about a Jan. 30 letter by Wynne to the city’s administrative assistant regarding copying costs in criminal cases, citing the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.

“You can only charge for copies.” Wynne wrote. “You may not bill for employee time for pulling the files and making the copies. Also, with regard to copying video tapes, it is my understanding that the only thing we can charge is the cost of duplicating the tape which would be the costs of the DVD or video tape that the data is being copied to.”

The policy changes made verbally by Kant in late February followed those events.

While the reduction in copying costs has been praised by local and national public interest groups, some still question the amount that copies of public records should cost.

“Anything that’s above the actual cost is not supposed to be charged for a public record,” said Dennis Bailey, general counsel for the Alabama Press Association. ”If you’re going to challenge the policy (legally), you would find a copy store in the area and ask them how much it costs for them to do it.”

At Staples office product store in Daphne, black and white copies of regular size paper costs 9 cents per page, when the store makes the copies for a customer. Fed Ex Kinko’s Office and Print Center in Mobile charges the same amount for full-service copying.

“Providing records to public citizens ought to be part of the job of government employees, which they are getting paid for already,” said Bill Chamberlin, a law professor at the University of Florida and director of the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project in Gainesville, Fla., referring to the current written open records policy. “Cost of labor provisions are not uncommon among state laws, but neither are they in the majority. Good government and open government advocates argue against them.”

Two years ago, the state’s open meetings law was strengthened in a major legislative effort that involved a number of groups, including the Alabama Press Association.

A similar effort to follow those reforms with a stronger state public records law has stalled, said Felicia Mason, executive director of the Alabama Press Association.

That means local efforts to strengthen and enforce public records laws are essential, she said.

“The public as a whole does not realize the importance of open records until they are faced with being denied some that they have a right to,” she said. “Once it touches them personally, then it become a huge issue for them.