AUGUSTA – What’s considered one of Maine’s most far-reaching advances for open-records and meetings advocates in recent years – a review of every exception to existing law – is undergoing some rethinking in the State House.

A law that took effect in 2004 requires a legislative committee review of every exception – existing and proposed – to the state’s Freedom of Access guarantees.

With at least 500 exceptions scattered throughout the statutes already, a complete review of every one takes at least a decade.

But even with the review of the sunshine statutes apportioned over several years, it’s still a great deal of work for the committee, which has mounds of other bills to deal with, according to some members.

“I totally agree with the underlying policy of the legislation,” said Rep. Sean Faircloth. “It creates a presumption in favor of sunshine, and that is good.”

The downside, said the Bangor Democrat, is that the heavy workload leaves the committee time for little more than a perfunctory review of the laws. Faircloth said the exceptions review takes at least a quarter of the committee’s time.

He believes that the ongoing review would be best left to a panel created by the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, which includes media organizations, lawyers, educators and public-policy groups that have an interest in open access to government documents and meetings.

Mal Leary, president Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, agrees that the review creates a lot of work for the committee.

That’s why his group supports draft legislation to create a mechanism to filter out statutes over which there is no disagreement – such as school, human services and proprietary information – and highlight those that represent important losses of access.

The exceptions-review law is just one new protection after a 2002 statewide audit to test the willingness of municipalities, schools and police to comply with the state’s Freedom of Access law.

A law passed two years ago establishes “reasonable” fees for copies of public records and requires government to respond to requests within a “reasonable” time. A bill passed in 2004 requires public officials to cite state laws allowing them to hold executive sessions before they go behind closed doors.

As of 2004, police at all levels had to certify they have written procedures to respond to freedom of access requests and that a person is trained to respond to those requests.

But there have been some setbacks as well, in part because of security concerns prompted by the 2001 terrorist attacks. Privacy concerns arising from worries about identity thefts have also prompted lawmakers to tighten the rules on what kinds of personal information can be released.

Legislative records show more than 60 changes since 2001 to various laws and regulations broadening and tightening Mainers’ access to public meetings and records.

A law intended to bolster security makes confidential records describing security plans and procedures for preventing terrorism, if their release could jeopardize the safety of government personnel or the public.

Laws passed in 2003 protect the confidentiality of records pertaining to the secretary of state’s information technology system, and the architecture and design of government structures.

Concerns about privacy and prevention of identity theft prompted lawmakers to pass a law to prevent the release of Social Security numbers. A 2004 law says medical information in the possession of the state retirement system, including information pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of mental or emotional disorders, is confidential.

A 2003 law said confidential information regarding complaints against state employees should not be released, and the same year lawmakers tightened up releases of home-schooling records. Releases of information about campers at state parks also have been restricted.

Several confidentiality protections pertaining to gaming interests were added last year as racino gambling moved into the state.

Gaming companies, which must submit voluminous reports to the state, demanded the law to protect trade secrets, employee privacy and the like. The final bill was modified to address the worries of those who feared an erosion of access rights.