Providing a clear view of the actions of government should fall into a category of “without exception.”

But in looking for whom to blame for a hard-hitting story, politicians’ simple choice is to blame the messenger and make it more difficult in the future to access public information.

We live in an era when avoiding personal responsibility for one’s actions is the norm. It is fair game to blame society, economic conditions or social ills for a bad decision. Without exception, accountability should be the option.

These points are relevant to the open-records debate under way in the Tennessee General Assembly.

For two years a legislative study committee wrestled with openness in government as it relates to meetings and records. Changes on meetings remain unsettled so the study continues.

For open records a consensus was reached and legislative action is ongoing in the House and the Senate.

The record law revisions appear minimal but attempt to remove some of the ambiguities that cloud their application.

There is a date set to comply with an open-records request; at least to state when material will be produced. Another change relates to fees for producing records. The existing fee structure is nebulous and can be applied in a punitive way to fend off requests.

This does not imply that anyone in government in a position to set the rules for public access to public records has any motive other than to be helpful and comply fully.

It is not an exception to notify elected and appointed officials when a request for information that involves them is filed. No doubt this is merely a courtesy and should in no way be construed as trying to influence the production of public documents.

A portion of the House committee discussion on the open-records bill by an attorney for the city of Memphis referred to a decision by Hamilton County Chancellor Frank Brown earlier this year. The chancellor held that tapes made by a former judge which had been turned over to law enforcement officials, produced on state equipment and provided to a state employee were the personal property of the judge. The chancellor held that access to the tape through open records was not appropriate.

Memphis officials took the position that Chancellor Brown’s decision allows personal e-mail by Memphis City Council members using taxpayer-funded information systems to be outside of the open-records law.

“It appears anything personal or private that is exchanged via e-mail does not fall under the rubric of public records,” the Memphis city attorney told House committee members.

At least one committee member, according to The Associated Press, questioned the logic of such a statement.

“Even though these are city-owned computers, there should be some e-mail on those not open to the public?” said Rep. Joe Hensley, R-Hohenwald. “If they’re e-mailing on those computers, then that should all be open to the public.”

The interpretation and application of a Hamilton County judicial ruling is enlightening. It demonstrates the lengths that some will go to to shield from the public information that is part of doing the public’s business.