Defining public and private is no longer simple. Government regulates many types of behavior once considered private. Seat belt and helmet laws and those banning trans fats are three examples. And government money and influence make possible the existence of many private businesses and institutions.
This intermingling makes it difficult to discern which is which in many cases. Not so in the case of the University of Maryland Medical System, which a federal judge last week defined as a public institution in regard to Maryland?s Public Information Act following a lawsuit by Arnold Jolivet, the executive director of the Maryland Minority Contractors Association, who was denied access to UMMS records he requested under the MPIA.
The ruling means Marylanders have more access to the institutions they support through their tax dollars and by their choice at the ballot box. As we all know, sunshine brings greater accountability wherever it is allowed access.
This ruling also sets a great precedent for future MPIA cases, because it looks at the full relationship between UMMS and the state. Judge William Quarles rightly said money is only one of many factors that should be considered in determining its status. The fact that the governor appoints UMMS? board of directors and that the hospital must operate on the same fiscal year as the state, turn its financial records over to the state, and tailor its care to meet the needs of the state and the region convinced Quarles that “UMMS is an instrumentality of the state within the scope of the MPIA.”
But the ruling also begs the question of whether contractors who receive a majority of their revenue from the government should also fall under MPIA scrutiny. We do not see why not. Government should not be able to hide tax dollars by shipping them off their books.
The legislature could remedy this issue by attaching MPIA access to any government contract or grant over $25,000 ? the threshold for which state spending, contracts and grants would be made available online under legislation now being considered in the General Assembly.
That would have made it much easier to detect the millions in cost overruns and shady financial dealings between Morgan State University and Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. outed by a recent Department of Legislative Services Audit. And it might have prevented them if both parties knew their spending would be scrutinized.
Logic says that if state spending should be made public, all of it save for that deemed private for clearly defined reasons should be available for review. And in these tough budget times it only makes sense to give citizens more information about how, where and why our elected and appointed officials are choosing to spend our money.
