Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, may have good intentions in wanting to exempt academic research data as it's being gathered by state universities from provisions of the state's Freedom of Information Act.
But his recently introduced House Bill 1080 is, in my opinion and that of many others, unnecessary and a truly bad proposal that makes me wonder where such an idea originated.
Surely it can't involve the fact that Rep. Douglas (elected in District 91 in 2013 without opposition) is a former president of the Benton County Farm Bureau, or serves on the House Agriculture Committee, or is in the leadership of the Illinois River Watershed Partnership. No way he'd be carrying water for those special interests.
Douglas explained the rationale behind his bill to veteran political reporter and observer Doug Thompson by saying he doesn't believe disclosing snippets of data gathered while research is under way tells the people of Arkansas worthwhile information until the entire project is completed. However, the people can see the data after what could be years of research is completed.
That argument leaves me scratching my noggin since it runs counter to this Ozark boy's limited understanding of pure-dee common sense.
It certainly wouldn't affect the outcome of any research to reveal findings along the process. That's especially valid if the study is examining a subject as potentially serious as the potential contamination of our Buffalo National River, or the Illinois River.
We the public who pay for the public research (as we do for Douglas' elected services) deserve to know what's being discovered rather than waiting long periods to know when something as toxic as hog waste has possibly contaminated the river.
Thompson reported that various topics of research by public universities and colleges are monumentally important to the people of Arkansas, including fluoridation of drinking water, as well as water quality in the Buffalo and Illinois rivers.
Douglas said that taking a couple of days of data from a two-year research study is comparable to "watching two or three frames out of a two-hour movie. You can't really tell anything from that."
But what relevant difference does it make whether Arkansans are following developments as they unfold? And why would Douglas, as a politically connected farmer by career, care enough to want to change a perfectly good law (among the best in the nation) unless it's to manage the flow of any potentially negative and embarrassing results from being released to we the people?
Surely there would be no concern with disclosing positive results along the way.
Should the ongoing University of Arkansas water-quality studies hypothetically show that bacterial and chemical contamination from animal waste is occurring within the Buffalo National River and its environmentally sensitive, karst-riddled watershed, why should we the people need to wait years to learn that?
Revealing such findings as they are shown to be occurring clearly would generate a public outcry even longer and louder than what already has arisen since our state wrongheadedly allowed a controversial Cargill-supplied hog factory into the fragile watershed.
And therein lies what strikes me as one possible motive behind proposing this kind of misguided and unnecessary law.
What politico, corporation or responsible party would want to face a barrage of negative headlines and the pressures from further revelations should a devastating waste spill occur within the watershed?
Thompson reports research information withheld by the bill from the public until final conclusions are reached would include "manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific or academic papers, plans, or proposals for future research and pre-publication peer reviews, the papers, plans, or proposals for future research and pre-publication peer reviews."
Douglas did concede that his bill needs further refining and that you and I could still examine, under the law, the methodology and scope and subjects involved in such studies.
The people of Arkansas just wouldn't be able to know what's being found along the way, not until those conducting the study at a state-owned college or university say their work is officially concluded, on their timetable.
By the way, why wouldn't the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (chuckle) be up in arms over this kind of bill that restricts public access to significant environmental information?
I like what reader Joe Nix had to say about Douglas' misguided bill now sitting in the House Education Committee: "So the state pays for research to determine impact, if any, of the hog farm on the Buffalo but public can't see [ongoing] results ... such legislation has far reaching implications for science in general."
Let's hope, for all our sakes, that this troublesome bill languishes in the education committee until its justifiable demise.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Editorial on 01/25/2015