Perhaps the prevailing narrative in this year’s presidential campaign has been one of frustration with the “establishment.” Clearly, millions of Americans feel that our economic and political systems are broken, and that those at the highest levels of business and government place their own careers, connections, and self-interest before the public good.

Such sentiment is familiar to Rhode Islanders. A number of episodes in recent years – including the 38 Studios debacle and its ongoing fallout – have added fresh fuel to long-simmering public anger over the opaque, crony-driven manner in which the state too often seems to operate.

A recent Rhode Island Supreme Court ruling in a high-profile public records case will only serve to reinforce that perception among many citizens of the Ocean State. We add our voice to the chorus of those who find the ruling deeply disappointing and troubling.

The case, brought by the Providence Journal, sought the release of Rhode Island State Police records regarding their investigation of a 2012 graduation party hosted by the 18-year-old son of then-Gov. Lincoln Chafee at the family’s Exeter property. An underage girl who had attended the party was hospitalized after consuming an excessive amount of alcohol. Chafee’s son, Caleb, pleaded no-contest to violating the state’s social-host law, and the record was later expunged.

At the heart of the case is the state’s Access to Public Records Act, which was revised in 2012. The updated law gives judges and others responsible for overseeing records a level of discretion in terms of balancing the public interest against the privacy of individuals. This case provided the first major test of the law since its revision.

The Journal argued that obtaining the Chafee records – which the paper was repeatedly denied – served the public interest, given that state police report to the governor and the agency’s commander, in this case Col. Steven O’Donnell, serves at the governor’s pleasure.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, found that release of the records would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy interest” of the former governor’s son.

Incredibly, the ruling further states that in cases where the “alleged public interest is rooted in government wrongdoing,” the “seeker of information must provide some evidence that government negligence or impropriety was afoot.”

For the state’s highest court to take such a stance is extremely disturbing. Without access to public information and records, where is such evidence of “negligence or impropriety” to be found? Should not the burden be on those charged with serving the public to show, beyond a vague assertion of privacy, that some compelling reason exists to deny access to information?

As the ACLU of Rhode Island said through a statement, “without being able to examine the documents, it is impossible to determine a key fact behind the records request – whether the public outcome of the investigation properly reflects what the undisclosed investigation actually uncovered.”

The court’s standard would seem to establish a very dangerous precedent – one the ACLU believes “tipped the scales the wrong way” in terms of the balance between individual privacy and public interest.

We believe, as the Journal argued, that the public interest in this case was clear. The court’s ruling, we feel, will have some highly negative consequences – emboldening those who would selectively limit the public’s access to information about the workings of government, and creating a clear impression of favoritism and special treatment for those with powerful connections.

We urge the state’s leaders to recognize the corrosive effect this decision will have, to embrace transparency, and to ensure the law reflects and protects the public’s right to know.