Developers don't see the 'Big Picture' on Secrecy

Recently Cullen Larson, executive director of the Georgia Economic Developers Association, authored a piece arguing that the work of state and local governments in industrial recruitment should be cloaked with more secrecy and exempted from the Georgia open government laws.

His views contain the potential for great mischief and fortunately do not represent the views of the people of Georgia. While all Georgians want more jobs and increased tax revenue produced by expanding businesses, Georgians do not want growth "at any cost."

Mr. Larson characterizes the debate as one between "the media" and professionals like himself who work to bring jobs to Georgia. But, in fact, there are many groups of citizens who oppose increased secrecy. To the extent that the media stands up for open government, it does so on behalf of all Georgia citizens. And the media does not do so with any anti-growth bias.

Few businesses in a community benefit more from increased jobs and economic activity than local newspapers and broadcasters. If the media were prompted by self-interest alone, it would stand shoulder to shoulder with developers and say "adios" to the open government folks.

Economic development activities can be carried out in secret if conducted solely by private companies and individuals. It is only when private businesses cross over the line and negotiate with governmental bodies for concessions and approvals that the public right to know is triggered.

Mr. Larson's column overstates the need to keep secret "proprietary" financial data and facility designs obtained from companies who seek to locate in Georgia.

For all public companies, financial data is available as a matter of law. This financial data must be filed on at least a quarterly basis with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. For smaller companies that do not have public shareholders, it is hard to imagine what confidential financial information must be provided to local officials in the industrial recruitment process that would put a business at a competitive disadvantage.

A prospective business seeking to locate in Georgia needs to be able to buy the land and pay for infrastructure, but beyond that, the company's financial details need not be disclosed in this process.

As for a "facility design" that is disclosed under the open government laws, a project design need only be disclosed to the extent that it impacts the environment or increases the demand for public services - just the type of information citizens want to know before their local governments grant subsidies or concessions to a prospective business.

Likewise, the "long-term growth plans" that Mr. Larson says need to be protected are not ordinarily given to a government in the course of negotiating a project. A firm seeking room to grow need only indicate that it wants an option on more land or wants more infrastructure, and detail what it will provide to the local government in return.

The real nub of the matter is that many companies do not want it known that they are considering placing a facility in one location if it means closing one somewhere else. Accordingly, many business development officials deal with the prospective company through an intermediary using documentation that does not precisely identify the company.

Of course, once all preliminary negotiations are completed and governmental action is required to grant concessions or to give permits and approvals, the public would and should know the identity of the company involved.

Prior to that, the public should be able to learn from documents required to be made public under the Open Records Act, generally what type of business is being planned, the concessions it wants, the concessions being offered, the potential impact on the environment and the demand for governmental services.

Mr. Larson implied that the public does not need the open government laws to apply because any zoning approval or permit granting will have to take place at a meeting open to the public. However, if the public is deprived of information about a prospective business to be located in its community until the time for action by a local government, authority or agency, the matter will be voted on without any opportunity for advance public discussion with the government officials who will make the decisions.

The public decision-makers will have heard in advance from only one side - the development promoters and the business. This would be neither fair nor good public policy.

It goes without saying, as Mr. Larson argues, that keeping economic development activities secret is meant to "protect the company during the site-selection phase." What that truism ignores is that there is an even greater interest to be protected - the public interest.

It is a poor argument to state that any project that brings new jobs and capital investment automatically is a good thing for a community. Just ask those communities who have defeated projects that would have spoiled the environment or overloaded public services.

It is also a false statement to assert that without secrecy Georgia will suffer in terms of economic prosperity. One only has to look at the fact that Georgia is one of the fastest-growing states in the country in terms of population and jobs, and that we are one of only five states that hold the highest bond rating for state debt instruments. This is because Georgia keeps its financial house in order and has prospered without "giving away the store" to attract industrial development.

Mr. Larson argues against the Georgia attorney general taking steps to reveal the efforts of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce (a private organization) to recruit the Super Bowl in 2009 and the NASCAR Hall of Fame to be located in Atlanta.

If the members of the Chamber wanted to negotiate in secret regarding these two projects, more power to them. But once they sought special concessions from the state and local governments and the participation of governmental officials in their official capacities, they crossed over from private enterprise that can be kept secret, to a project that involves the public.

With that transition comes the right of every citizen to know what his or her elected leaders and governmental entities are being asked to give, contribute or allow to happen in connection with the projects.

To date, no one has been able to point to a single business project that Georgia lost because state and local governments in Georgia are subject to the open meetings and open records laws. The "sky is falling" argument simply does not work here.

Georgia has grown exponentially and will continue to do so. Recruitment of industrial projects and business opportunities have taken place successfully for years in compliance with Georgia open-government laws, and there is no evidence, nor any reasonable argument, that it will not continue for years to come.

David Hudson is the Georgia Press Association's general counsel and a partner in the Augusta law firm of Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett & Salley.

Letter as published in The Macon Telegraph Sat., Nov. 26, 2005.