I thought Oklahoma's Open Records Act was weak. Then lawmakers made it worse.

Every so often lawmakers decide to monkey around with the state’s open records laws and make changes that adversely affect the public’s right to know.

So in honor of our nation’s Sunshine Week, this seems a fitting time to point out how one of the Legislature’s bright ideas to “improve” our Open Records Act has backfired spectacularly.

They’ve changed state law to state that at “the sole discretion of the public body, a public body may keep personnel records confidential … (which) relate to internal personnel investigations including examination and selection material for employment, hiring, appointment, promotion, demotion, discipline or resignation.”

So instead of helping increase public access to the inner workings of government, legislators have actually done the opposite. They’ve emboldened operating in the shadows and with impunity. It’s easier for bad actors to hide and more difficult for the public to know why officials are making decisions.

And for some reason, legislators cannot figure out how — or don’t want — to fix it.

Lawmakers added the “sole discretion” provision after the city of Owasso was forced to release an investigative report that, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, detailed criminal and city policy violations by a former city manager.

Rather than simply fire the official, the Owasso City Council awarded the city manager with a “generous severance package.”

Patrick Ross, a now-former Owasso city councilman, objected to that decision and rightly believed the investigative report should be public. The city denied Ross access, and he sued.

The case dealt with questions of whether the city abused its power by refusing to make a report public and also why a city manager could resign and receive severance. Ultimately, the state’s Court of Civil Appeals required the report’s release.

The court found that while the city “may” withhold some records, it didn’t have “unlimited discretion” to do so. It developed a balancing test that weighs the public’s right to know versus the interest of a government body in keeping information confidential.

In response, lawmakers then decided to add the “sole discretion” provision.

Anybody with two brain cells can identify right away why it’s a bad idea to give “sole discretion” to any government body. What entity is going to want to voluntarily release personnel records, particularly those that might shine a dim light on hiring or disciplinary decisions?

Yet, the public deserves to know whether there are discriminatory hiring practices or why officials are being paid exorbitant sums of money to depart.

Last year, lawmakers clumsily tried to bandage their boo-boo by giving our courts the authority to determine if a disputed record should be released.

Gov. Kevin Stitt blocked that effort because the fix was “rife with issues and should not become law.”

Stitt wrote that the legislation created ambiguities and allowed courts to engage in “arbitrary balancing related to highly sensitive information,” according to his veto message. Stitt also argued that there were questions about whether a public body could collect attorneys fees if facing “a frivolous suit.”

Most Oklahomans don’t have the financial resources or time to pursue “frivolous” open records lawsuits.

Lawmakers did not override the veto, and the provision remains for the worst.

Over the past few months, Oklahomans have had a front row seat to a fight that’s been playing out between Oklahoma Voice and the state’s Department of Wildlife Conservation governing board in part over the “sole discretion” provision.

The board contends that the public is not entitled to view the severance agreement that was entered into as part of the “voluntary” resignation of its former executive director J.D. Strong. The board also initially refused to say how much money Strong was to receive.

The governing commission later revealed it had agreed to pay him $169,341 as part of his voluntary resignation, but continues to refuse to release the severance agreement.

Most Oklahomans are lucky to receive payouts for their unused vacation time when they leave a job of their own free will, let alone a six-figure golden parachute.

Prior to this open records dispute, I knew nothing about the “sole discretion” provision, and I hadn’t paid any attention to the records fight in Owasso that led to it.

If there’s anything to be learned from the fiasco, it’s that seemingly small word additions can have a big impact on overall access.

It should concern Oklahomans that public bodies are interpreting the provision as an excuse to keep records secret. After all, the Open Records Act should be ammunition to help increase public access and confidence, not restrict it.

Can you imagine if our universities, state education boards or law enforcement entities started weaponizing the “sole discretion” provision?

The public will never know what, if anything, we’d paid a disgraced football coach to leave or if hush money was paid to someone who commits egregious conduct like sexual harassment, drunkeness on the job, or general malfeasance.

Lawmakers should consider taking another crack at fixing this. Oklahomans want public officials to be accountable for their decisions.

And they deserve to know why taxpayer dollars are being spent.

It’s only right that our policies allow light to shine on government decisions, not snuff it out.

Janelle Stecklein is editor of Oklahoma Voice. An award-winning journalist, Stecklein has been covering Oklahoma government and politics since moving to the state in 2014.

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma's Open Records Act made worse by legislators. Here's how.