And the text itself. Very short, less than a page.
I only looked through it once, but it does seem to be as described. Some sensible things, like I don't think people need to know the individual officers' names who are guarding someone (which it made it sound like it is a thing), but then there's your standard "means and methods" and "outweigh any public benefit that may be derived from the disclosure of these records." This bill would certainly make a lot of previously available information no longer available.
From the linked Twitter thread:
And this seems like an especially bright red flag:
The amendment would expand the public-records exemption to cover records containing "personal information unrelated to the official duties of the protected person."
Not sure where that came from, though. It's in quotes, but I'm not sure who is being quoted. It's certainly not in the bill itself.
For those curious, here's the bill.
And the text itself. Very short, less than a page.
I only looked through it once, but it does seem to be as described. Some sensible things, like I don't think people need to know the individual officers' names who are guarding someone (which it made it sound like it is a thing), but then there's your standard "means and methods" and "outweigh any public benefit that may be derived from the disclosure of these records." This bill would certainly make a lot of previously available information no longer available.
From the linked Twitter thread:
Not sure where that came from, though. It's in quotes, but I'm not sure who is being quoted. It's certainly not in the bill itself.