TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS — You wouldn’t know it by the cloud cover and heavy rain we’ve experienced this week, but it’s Sunshine Week.

This time we’re not talking about the sun in the sky. Sunshine Week is about the public and the press’s right to know. It’s about openness in our government and open records. This year it comes at a time when a large percentage of adults see our federal government as secretive, and an even larger number believe it’s important they know the positions of presidential and congressional office-seekers on open government when they go to the polls.

Sunshine Week is an effort by national newspaper editors to educate the public about the importance of open government, and the danger brought on by government secrecy. Media outlets do a variety of things, from writing stories and editorials, to posting special Web pages every year in mid-March to encourage public discussion of open records and government.

Oklahoma media outlets have focused Sunshine Week efforts this year on a state Supreme Court rule that takes effect June 10. At that time, documents in the high court and 13 state district courts will be limited online to court dockets. Actual documents will no longer be available.

Records from those courts are on the www.oscn.net Web site. Cherokee County’s court records, however, are on the www.odcr.com site.

“The documents we file haven’t been available online since our records were computerized,” Court Clerk Shirley Glory said. “We have a public access computer where people can view documents.”

Cherokee County’s court records have been computerized since 1997, and a public access computer has been available since that time. Documents can be viewed on that computer.

Court officials have cited increased problems with identity theft as a reason for removing the documents from the Internet. Social security numbers, account numbers and other identifiers have previously been included on court documents.

Glory said a person came to the court clerk’s office this week with a series of documents to file and all of them had full nine-digit Social Security numbers on them.

“I told her she needed to remove all but the last four numbers,” Glory said. “They can bring the full number with them when they come to court, if they need to verify someone’s identity.”

Glory said the Supreme Court’s move to cut down on chances of identity theft is a good idea because it’s a big problem. She said, however, that a lack of information on court filings can create confusion.

“We have several people around here with the same names,” she explained. “A date of birth or Social Security number is a sure way to differentiate which person you’re filing a case against.”

Assistant District Attorney David Pierce had mixed feelings about the high court’s rule. He agrees with Glory that identity theft is a major issue and taking steps toward avoiding that with court records is a good thing.

He said the downfalls could be an ability to keep identities of defendants straight as a case progresses through the system.

Mark Thomas, the Oklahoma Press Association’s executive vice-president, doesn’t think possible identity theft is a sufficient enough reason for removing images of court documents from the Internet.

“I hope the court will revisit and revise the rule,” Thomas said. “There are ways to reduce the threat of identity theft without complete removal of this information.”

Thomas said he believes citizens understand that their tax dollars pay for the public court system.

“As taxpayers, we deserve the right to see and understand exactly who is using this court system that we pay for,” he continued.

State Sen. Jim Wilson said he, too, would like to see the Supreme Court revisit the issue and protect another way against identity theft.

“We have just begun to have transparency in state government with efforts to put ethics, expenditures and economic forecasts on the Web,” Wilson said. “I wouldn’t vote to see this new openness slide backward.”

The rule calls for deletion or partial redaction of certain personal information such as Social Security and taxpayer identification numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers and home addresses. The odcr.com Web site has already taken steps to remove those types of information from cases already filed. Previously, a person’s date of birth and address could be found by clicking on the name on the docket sheet.

Glory said the rule states the responsibility to redact the personal identifiers lies with the person filing the document.

“It specifically states my office isn’t to review documents to see if they are in compliance with the rule,” she said.

The Supreme Court decision was not unanimous.

“What I disagree with is the instantaneous restriction of public access to current public court documents online,” Justice Yvonne Kauger wrote in a dissenting opinion. “The court made this decision with input only from the court clerks, others directly affected by the decision ––the bar, the bench, the legislature and the public were not consulted.”

Thomas said the public could look at documents online and print what they wanted when records were on the Internet.

“It was a tremendous public service,” Thomas said.

He said an analysis of how much additional money court clerks are going to get for printing the records for the public should be done.

“The Supreme Court said they consulted court clerks on this issue and court clerks will financially benefit from this rule.”

Kauger said the courts have a responsibility to balance the risk of harm that may be rendered by the disclosure of sensitive information with the need for a “fully open” court record.

She also maintains that, until a proper study is made, the rule should be changed to clearly establish that the burden is on the filer to remove restricted information, court clerks and other court employees are immune from liability for unintentional and unknowing disclosures of such information and documents currently available online should continue to be made available with the private information redacted by the court clerk when it’s brought to their attention.

Kauger wants a hearing before the high court with comment from the bench and bar and she would also invite public participation.

“This is an egregious example of throwing the baby out with the bath water,” Kauger wrote in her opinion.