ColoradoPolitics.com’s Joey Bunch offered some enlightening insights earlier today about the headline-making face-off in Grand Junction between a veteran state lawmaker and his local newspaper’s publisher. That smackdown probably doesn’t need another recap; if you haven’t read Bunch’s blog post on the subject, please do so.

Then, read a solid story-behind-story by Complete Colorado’s Sherrie Peif about the seemingly innocuous bill that served as the catalyst for the clash between state Sen. Ray Scott, R-Grand Junction, and Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Publisher Jay Seaton. Whatever the outcome of Scott vs. Seaton – which could even include a threatened libel suit by the latter against the former – Peif makes clear the prospects of the bill itself, so far, aren’t bright. Hearings already have been delayed twice as the bill’s sponsors and evidently many others try to tinker with its details to get it ready for prime time.

Senate Bill 40, introduced in the upper chamber by Sen. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, would require government agencies subject to the Colorado Open Records Act, or CORA, to disclose requested data in the format in which it was created. For example: an Excel spreadsheet of a agency’s employees and their pay. Such an enhancement to CORA could make it easier, as Peif points out, for reporters to track down something like specific employees and their pay whereas under the current law, the agency might reconfigure the data before its release. In principle, the change would be a good thing. We newsies sure would like it.

Yet, even though such a provision is intended to strengthen the law and thus bring more transparency to government, the fine print in the proposal is said to be riddled with problems. Assorted stakeholders have raised issues, reports Peif, who writes that the legislation “is becoming a muddied mess.” For instance:

“It’s a resource issue for us,” said Nate Haas, spokesman for (the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley). “The bill as written would require upfront and recurring costs surrounding data formatting that include purchasing equipment and hardware, data storage, and increased staff and increased staff time required to manage a separate database to comply with the law. As it is right now, because of resource limitations, we’re required to manage open records with staff whose primary responsibilities reside elsewhere.”

And Peif notes this concern by the state Attorney General’s Office:

…the Attorney General’s office is worried about metadata – or data that might include prior changes and comments to a document – and other personally identifiable information being released inadvertently.

We’ll spare you the old saw about lawmaking and sausage making, but you get the idea. Read Peif’s full report for more details; here’s that link again.