On 4/16/07, Steven Whitaker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Quite a stretch for columnist Jon Mendelson to connect a Tracy
> councilwoman to the White House. I had to read the whole thing a couple of
> times to figure out there is no connection.
If you had been following this story since it first broke, like many of us
directly involved have, you'd find it much easier to see the connection.
The central issue here is the assertion that records (e-mail, in this case)
being generated and received by an elected official on a personally
purchased and owned computer that involve and are related to official
business decisions and transactions (in this case, of a City) ARE NOT
PERSONAL.
Because some of these exchanges involved official Federal documents,
(Department of Energy and National Nuclear Safety Administration) and the
sender identified herself as "Suzanne Tucker, Tracy City Council" in each
message DOZENS of which were sent/received between Sept 7 2006 and Jan 16
2007 the case is quite similar.
The California Public Records Act is quite clear about writings of public
officials:
The Public Records Act defines the term "public record" very broadly:
"public records' includes any writing containing information relating to the
conduct of the people's business prepared, owned, used or retained by any
state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."
(Government
Code Section 6252(e).) The Attorney General has defined "public record" even
more broadly: the definition of public record "is intended to cover every
conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and
will pertain to any form of record–keeping instrument as it is developed. Only
purely personal information unrelated to 'the conduct of the public's
business'" is exempt from the definition of "public records," such as "the
shopping list phoned from home, the letter to a public officer from a friend
which is totally void of reference to governmental activities.'"
And the California Constitution is equally as clear:
Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution, enacted by Proposition
59, states in part as follows;
b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the
conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public
bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to
public scrutiny.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on
the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it
furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits
the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after
the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall
be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the
limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
No doubt it could be construed as a "stretch" to equate this with the White
House e-mail situation, but it's VERY SIMILAR in that there are published
policies for the use of e-mail and communications and what is allowed and
how it is to be conducted, and that is where it draws the two scenarios much
closer together.
As others have mentioned, people are gonna do what they're gonna do, but
when they attempt to hide behind protections that aren't afforded to them
because of the positions they have chosen to serve in, or that they were
elected to and assert they should be provide protections as private citizens
that private citizens no longer have (thank you, Patriot Act) it's time to
cry foul.
Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
