The state of Oregon has a new job dedicated to settling fights over public records. Ginger McCall, the new public records advocate, was recently asked about changing the state’s public records laws.

“What I hope to do as part of this role is hold sessions with the public to get feedback from them on what changes they think need to be made, what problems they see with the law,” she told The Oregonian. “I’m hoping to have the same listening sessions with agencies.”

It’s a sensible answer, considering she doesn’t start the job until April. But the biggest problem with Oregon’s public records laws is not the laws, but how they are applied.

Oregon’s public-records laws require that nonexempt government records be available to the public. Even if records may be exempt, there’s usually a balancing test between the public interest in knowing what’s going on and the argument for keeping it hidden.

But it doesn’t work quite right. It’s a one-sided fight with most of the power in the hands of the people holding the records.

Many local and state agencies eagerly comply with routine requests, such as police reports or recordings of public meetings. When the government doesn’t want to turn over something, though, expect delays, denials, court costs or fees that will stop all but the rich from getting public records.

For instance, you may remember all the problems Deschutes County has been having with its new digital radio system for the county’s law enforcement. One issue has been the quality of the system’s reception. How good is reception supposed to be driving around the county or in buildings? What did the county buy?

We asked to see the what the $4 million contract said. While the county has been very forthcoming in providing other parts of the contract and hundreds of emails showing county discussions about the radios, it declined to release the section of the contract showing details about reception. So how is the public supposed to know if county government bought an inadequate system or if the contractor, Harris Corp., has simply not been able to meet the contract?

Public officials love to boast about their commitment to public transparency. They should live up to those boasts.