During a final meeting Wednesday of the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) Task Force, some lawmakers spent a lot of time talking about why they need to protect email exchanges between themselves and their constituents.

That’s despite compelling evidence supporting a more careful and thoughtful approach to making some of this communication open to public view.

One of the most common arguments cited by lawmakers is that their constituents don’t realize their communications could be public. This is the weakest of all arguments and based on faulty logic. Should Utah repeal laws about raffles and Super Bowl pools just because most Utahns don’t know they are illegal? Many don’t understand the specifics of much of what is on the lawbooks in Utah. Ignorance is never a good reason to abdicate good lawmaking.

Government officials and the media can educate the public about such policies. There are also practical ways to increase constituent understanding, including an electronic gateway to submit emails to legislators which specifically states that emails to public officials are considered public documents. The gateway could also include notice that personal information and specific information may be protected from disclosure under law. Some task-force members also proposed a system that would generate a similar notice the first time someone sends an email to a public official.

Furthermore, an official email generator, much like the one used for members of the U.S. Congress, could have constituents select an option where they say, “this email contains personal information.” That would help officials designate an email exchange as a “private” record.

Some lawmakers argue constituent emails need protection because they often share personal information that might invade privacy if disclosed. Has anyone read the privacy exemptions in GRAMA? Such personal information can be separated from public content. GRAMA protects private information that might be included in a legislator’s email including reports of abuse, information about a welfare payment, a Social Security number and other personal information.

Legislators continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. They assert that constituents’ emails will end up on a newspaper’s front page. In the next breath, they say that no one pays attention to the news media, so any attempt by the media to educate the public would be ineffective. It’s all a scare tactic. Proponents of closing off emails have yet to cite an instance where information from a constituent’s email has shown up in news media anywhere, let alone on the front page. Lawmakers need to stop the hyperbole.

There are lawmakers who like to drape themselves in the flag and argue it is “un-American” to open constituent emails to public view. It is also certainly un-American to allow lobbyists and special interests to be cloaked under such a broad record exemption. For example, it would be simple for the powerful Utah League of Cities and Towns to send its message through a local mayor. The well-heeled banking lobby could funnel information through a constituent banker. What protections would be in place to assure email does not become the avenue of choice for abuse or even corruption?

Some policymakers want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Simply because personal information may be shared with lawmakers, they say the rest of what they receive from constituents should also be off limits. Utahns should recognize the smokescreen some lawmakers are generating and tell them to make emails that involve the public’s business open to view. In the end, citizens should reject the simplistic and short-sighted arguments for a blanket constituent email exemption which amounts to a legislative power grab.

Joel Campbell is a former reporter and current associate professor of communications at Brigham Young University. His reporting does not necessarily reflect the views of BYU. He writes on First Amendment and open-government issues for The Tribune. He can be reached at foiguy@gmail.com.