Fact Check: Do public records thwart job recruitment?

"Why would a CEO ever let us know where they are looking if they are subject to public records," Lindenmuth said, according to the paper. "Texas knew, but we didn't. We can't even have an open, frank discussion about everything."

The paper says that Lindenmuth said that business leaders looked at North Carolina's law and were unwilling to work with state job recruiters.

"Maybe we just gave the guy's competitive advantage away," he said. "In a case like Toyota, they don't want anybody knowing about it until it's announced. We've lost a number of deals because of that."

Lindenmuth referenced Toyota because the auto giant recently decided to move its North American headquarters to Texas. Charlotte was reportedly a runner-up. 

However, the exact rules that will govern the partnership are still under discussion. The state legislature did not complete work on a bill last year that would have governed the partnership, although it did give McCrory permission to form the partnership and get started on the transfer of responsibilities. Among the key points of discussion between the administration and the legislature are what rules – including what sections of the public records law – the new nonprofit will have to abide by. 

While the private company may wine and dine a potential client, the state will still retain the final decision on an incentives – tax rebates, training assistance or other perks – given to a company in order to induce them to relocate. 

Companies, she said, do not like sharing information about the location and workforce numbers behind any expansion, particularly if that information might become public before a final decision is made. Even once a decision is made, she said, companies might worry that they disclosed something in writing to a public body that could give competitors insight into their operations.

"I cannot cite an example where I can say empirically that the need for disclosure would have caused us to lose a deal," she said.

But, she said, she has heard from companies that they will not give North Carolina as much information about as project as they give to other states. 

"Has it made a difference? I can't tell you that it has, but I do know that it has been a point of regular conversation," she said. 

Sen. Harry Brown, R-Onslow, the lead author of the public-private partnership bill, said he also believes that the need to disclose material given to the state could be problematic. But like Decker, he could not cite a specific example. 

"You won't hear about it, that's the thing," Brown said. "You won't ever hear about it because those are very discrete negotiations in most cases."

"We needed a site that was closer to our manufacturing operations, in a neutral location, one without an existing Toyota presence," she said. "The decision was based on a very broad range of criteria, including geographic location, availability of suitable building site, direct flight connections, quality of life and cost of living for our associates, time zones and proximity to our manufacturing base. Nearly 100 locations were considered. No single criteria determined the final decision."

She made no mention of public records laws. 

It's similar, but not the same. North Carolina's law allows for disclosure once a project has announced it will locate in another state. 

Worth pointing out: Most, if not all, other states that do incentives, such as Texas, require disclosure of information once a deal is done. So, there would rarely be any situations in which North Carolina was disclosing information about a company that at least one other state was not also required to disclose. 

She and Casey Steinbacher, president of the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce, say that companies frequently demand local economic recruiters be discreet while negotiations are ongoing. 

"But I've never had a company say to me, 'The public records law is a problem for us,'" Steinbacher said. "Confidentiality is incredibly important, but in the last eight years that I've been here, we've been able to work that system in a way that addresses that concern."

Other state leaders not directly involved in economic development also are skeptical about the impact of public records on business recruiting. 

"I think that's an unfortunate comment. I don't necessarily agree with that," Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger said when asked about Lindenmuth's assertion. 

Jones, of the Open Government Coalition, said that both businesses and government officials should want information about recruitment efforts to be public.

"Citizens should know and understand how the government is using their tax dollars to recruit businesses," he said.

While people often think of that in the context of making sure state leaders don't give away too much when recruiting a business, Jones said, "It cuts both ways." Disclosure allows people to see that a business that goes elsewhere may have been asking for too much or that a company that does relocate here is a good value.

"Giving citizens a chance to see how their government is a functioning is always a good thing," he said. 

As for the argument that public records drive away job prospects, Jones said, "I think it just doesn't bear any weight at all. There's no merit to it.

"If the public records law were that big of an issue, we wouldn't have been in the race (for Toyota)," he said. "There are other big fish that have landed in North Carolina without the public records law being an issue."

Recent big deals have included the financial giant MetLife, which chose to locate operations in Cary and Charlotte last year. 

Given the state of North Carolina's law and the lack of evidence to support his statement, we're giving a red light to Lindenmuth's assertion that public records harm job recruitment. There's simply no proof.