House backs expanded public records exemption after sponsor says it’ll avert terrorist attack

The House has voted 63-4 in favor of an expanded public records exemption for records of “critical infrastructure,” after Rep. Don Cheatham, R-Post Falls, warned that without it, terrorists could attack. “This necessary protective measure, it is one of immediate necessity,” he told the House. He said it would protect information about existing or proposed critical infrastructure, including public power systems, from being released pursuant to a public records request.

“Do we want to release information which would increase their vulnerabilities and could result in a successful terrorist attack?” Cheatham asked. “I cannot think of one good reason why anyone needs to have access to this type of sensitive information. … What about the adverse impact to our economy and ultimately the deaths of innocent civilians?”

He said the bill, proposed by the Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association, is “a good protective measure,” and said, “It’s much easier to handle this matter now … rather than having Idaho citizens, Idaho’s Legislature, having to deal with an incident of such magnitude involving massive recovery efforts which could take months or even years to resolve.”

The bill, HB 447 , expands a current exemption from the Idaho Public Records Act for “records of buildings, facilities, infrastructure and systems held by or in the custody of any public agency,” but “only when the disclosure of such information would jeopardize the safety of persons or the public safety.” The existing exemption, created not long after the 9/11 attacks, includes “emergency evacuation, escape or other emergency response plans, vulnerability assessments, operation and security manuals, plans, blueprints or security codes.”

HB 447 changes the law from “would jeopardize the safety” to “could be used to jeopardize the safety.” It also adds “property” to “persons or the public safety,” and adds a lengthy definition of “critical infrastructure.” At an earlier committee hearing, opponents including the ACLU of Idaho and the Idaho Freedom Foundation called it overly broad and unnecessary.

The four “no” votes came from Reps. Scott, Nate, Harris and Mendive; the bill now moves to the Senate side.