Veteran journalist discusses how gaps in public records access shape transparency, accountability, and civic life in local communities.
At a Mar. 12 CJMD event, award-winning journalist and editor Miranda Spivack discussed government secrecy at the local level and the limits of public records systems.
The conversation, moderated by CJMD co-director Matt Powers, was based on Spivack’s new book Backroom Deals in Our Backyards: How Government Secrecy Harms Our Communities and the Local Heroes Fighting Back, centering on how public records systems operate in practice and who is able to use them effectively.
“Billions of dollars in public money are being spent by local governments, and we don’t know what’s going on,”she said.
Access exists, but not equally
Spivack described how her reporting on local government while employed at the Washington Post shaped her focus on transparency. Even with institutional backing, she struggled to obtain basic records, which led her to consider how the system works for people without that support.
“I’m a journalist, I know how to do this,” she said. “What if you are so-and-so down the street who just wants to know why your pothole isn’t being fixed?”
Public records laws exist in all states, but access depends on time, persistence, and often legal knowledge. Requests can take months, be denied on technical grounds, or produce incomplete data.
During the event, Spivack pointed to cases where information existed but was not accessible in a usable way. In one example, accident data tied to a serious cycling injury had to be reconstructed from individual police reports because agencies would not release the full dataset. The analysis ultimately showed patterns that supported claims of negligence, but only after significant effort.
That outcome was possible because resources were available, but for most people, that path is not.
“Information blockades”
Spivack described the structure of the system as an “information blockade,” emphasizing that the issue is not only denial but obstruction through process.
“I have this vision that they’re erecting these walls,” she said. “We, the public, are on the other side, and you just can’t get through.”
Records may be technically public, but they are often fragmented, delayed, or withheld through exemptions. Requests can require multiple filings, follow-ups, and appeals. In some cases, agencies release partial information that requires further analysis or additional requests to interpret.
This affects how communities respond to problems. Without access to complete records, it is difficult to determine whether risks were known, whether decisions were justified, or whether public funds were used appropriately.
Spivack said the pattern is consistent across different states and agencies.
“It is bad everywhere,” she said.
Trade secrets and contractor control
A significant portion of the discussion focused on the role of private contractors in limiting transparency. As more public functions are outsourced, private entities increasingly control information tied to government operations.
Spivack described how trade secret claims are used to block disclosure of records related to public contracts. These claims are often accepted by agencies without detailed review.
“Governments are ill-equipped,” she said. “Some person processing fifty FOIA requests doesn’t know what a trade secret is. The companies are really running the show on that.”
This dynamic allows companies to withhold information about wages, hiring practices, safety compliance, or contract performance, even when public funds are involved. The result is reduced visibility into how government contracts are executed.
“I think what you’re having more and more is what I would call corporate capture of state and local governments,” she said. “They’re in the driver’s seat way more than they used to be.”
Who uses public records
Spivack also addressed how public records systems are used. While the laws are designed for general access, the majority of requests come from corporations.
“The vast users of public records requests are corporations,” she said.
Businesses use these systems to gather information about competitors, contracts, and regulatory decisions. These requests can be large in volume and require significant administrative effort to process.
“They are flooding the zone,” she said. “The taxpayers — we’re underwriting it. That’s us.”
The cost of responding to those requests is borne by the public. At the same time, individuals and community groups rely on the same system to obtain information about local conditions and government actions. The structure, which the CJMD is currently researching in its Journalists, Transparency, and Democratic Governance project, does not distinguish between commercial and public-interest use, but the capacity to navigate the system differs.
News deserts and “accidental activists”
Spivack connected these issues to the decline of local journalism. In many of the cases she examined, reporters were not the primary drivers of investigation.
“I think it’s a reflection of the vast news deserts around the country,” she said.
In the absence of sustained reporting, individuals often take on the role of investigator. Spivack refers to them as “accidental activists” — people responding to specific problems in their communities who then begin navigating public records systems.
“They get rebuffed. They get really mad. They get really angry,” she said. “They are very, very tenacious.”
Over time, they develop expertise, build networks, and continue pursuing information. These efforts can last for years and often depend on sustained personal commitment rather than institutional support.
Technology and limits of reform
Audience questions expanded the discussion to include artificial intelligence and technological tools for processing records. Spivack said these tools may assist with searching and organizing information but do not resolve structural issues.
“You could use [AI] as a search tool,” she said. “But you’re still going to have to have a human being double-check it.”
She noted that errors are common and that agencies may not prioritize improving access.
“You can never underestimate incompetence,” she said. “But some of it is deliberate obfuscation.”
She also emphasized that democratic oversight and regulation often lags behind technological change.
“Technology is constantly outpacing the law,” she said.
Practical access and reporting
Spivack closed with practical advice to student journalists focused on how people interact with public records systems. Access is shaped not only by law but by administrative practices and relationships.
“Get to know the people who actually possess the records, and do it in person,” she said.
Understanding how records are stored, what exists, and who manages access can affect the outcome of a request. In many cases, informal knowledge of systems and personnel is as important as formal legal rights.
Why it matters
The discussion highlighted the gap between the idea of transparency and its implementation. Public records laws establish a right to access, but that right is mediated by resources, institutional capacity, and procedural barriers.
At the local level, these limitations affect how communities understand and respond to government actions. Access to records shapes whether risks can be identified, decisions evaluated, and accountability established. While records may be public, access is not equitable.
