Hospital authorities and the hospitals they operate must be transparent.

The state’s highest court has the opportunity to send a strong message to all governing bodies that the public’s business must be public.

Open government is the law in Georgia. 

We are pleased to learn the Georgia Supreme Court has agreed to consider the arguments of the Georgia Press Association, the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and plaintiff E. Kendrick Smith.

Northside Hospital in Atlanta had denied Smith’s open records request for financial records dating back to 2013. The authority’s position was simply that the hospital is not subject to the Georgia Open Records Act.

Northside’s nuanced argument continues to be that the hospital is not truly a public hospital but is a private nonprofit corporation, created by a hospital authority.

A trial court agreed with Northside, despite clear language in the Open Records Act that says if government — in this case the hospital authority — contracts with a private entity — in this case the nonprofit corporation — to perform its duties, then that entity is subject to the state’s sunshine laws.

The trial court got it wrong and we have every reason to believe the Supreme Court will correct a bad decision that could erode government transparency in Georgia.

The state’s leading authority on open government and the First Amendment, attorney David E. Hudson, who filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of GPA, GFAF and the AJC explained, “The trial court’s decision that the records in the hands of Northside and its subordinate entities are not subject to the Georgia Open Records Act cannot be sustained in light of the broad language of the statute in favor of openness and construing exceptions narrowly. Nor can it be sustained in light of the precedents of this court and the Supreme Court that require records to be open when a public agency has contracted with a private entity to carry out the agency’s public duties and responsibilities.”

Hudson pointed to an AJC investigative report in 2014 that demonstrates the importance of public accountability and open records related to the state’s public hospitals. The AJC published a report detailing multi-million dollar salaries and incentive plans for executives of several of the state’s hospital systems, including Northside.

He told the Court in the brief, “The article observes that ‘while some local hospitals that operate authority-owned hospitals readily complied with the AJC’s requests, some others — specifically, Northside and its $5.3 million CEO — denied that the act applied to them.’ For an entity like Northside, entrusted with running public assets on behalf of public agencies for the public’s benefit, it is for good reason that such a response is impermissible. Without the access afforded by the Open Records Act, the public that these entities are supposed to serve is left in the dark. Are they in business to provide quality and affordable health care to the public, as the law requires, or are they incentivized simply to maximize revenue? Should not the public have the right to know when it is in the public’s assets — and its health — at stake?”

Hudson hit the nail square on the head.

The lower court ruled in favor of Northside against Smith in the original lawsuit with the judge agreeing with the argument the hospital operated independently of the authority that created it. Smith appealed, and in a split decision, the court of appeals upheld the lower court ruling.

The case is headed to the Supreme Court where we believe his arguments will resonate, because of the dangerous implications of the trial and appellant court decisions. The Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in April.

This case should matter to the people of Georgia and has implications that go way beyond Northside Hospital and hospital authorities across the state. This case is about the public’s access to the people’s business.

The Georgia Open Records Act begins, “The General Assembly finds and declares that the strong public policy of this state is in favor of open government; that open government is essential to a free, open and democratic society; and that public access to public records should be encouraged to foster confidence in government and so that the public can evaluate the expenditure of public funds and the efficient and proper functioning of its institutions.”

While the lower courts don’t seem to understand the strong public policy of the state of Georgia and the reasons behind it, we are confident the High Court does and will overturn a dangerous decision for the people of Georgia when it takes up the case in April.