Re: "A proper public access law in my opinion (1) respects privacy; (2)
starts with an assumption that all records are open; (3) builds exemptions
to that openness via an open legislative process; and (4) supports the
development of systems to deliver on these commitments. In my opinion, the
waste is not related to the nature of the requests or the requestor; the
waste is due to a failure to meet these 4 parameters."
This sounds like an excellent way to differentiate levels of access and to
balance effective government operations with openness to public disclosure.
I have had government clients that seemed so concerned about public scrutiny
that they made costly decisions for the public - such as keeping ALL e-mails
in order to avoid any claims of impropriety. Without some differentiation
between the various values of the content of records - such as the privacy
of information about citizens, operational security for government
employees, or the ability to synthesize decisions in freewheeling
brainstorming sessions - it becomes dangerous to implement generalized laws,
policies, and procedures. One-size-fits-all does not work with information
content because different information is used in different manners to
achieve different agendas.
Re: "The problem I have with trying to control the occasional harasser is
that its not going to be possible without stifling legitimate access."
I agree and it would seem that having a base level of services, such as
copying x number or paper pages, or providing x number of megabytes of
information, and then charging a fee for anything over that, could
demonstrate openness while shifting some of the costs of large document
requests to the requestor.
John
********************************
John T. Phillips
MSLS, CRM, CDIA, FAI
Electronic Records Management
Consulting, Education, Research
Information Technology Decisions
www.infotechdecisions.com
865-966-9413
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of WALLIS Dwight D
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Open Records, FOIA and Potential Abuses
John Phillips wrote:
> An Open Records Act
or an Open Meetings Act is a sword that can cut many ways. And WE could be
the ones that pay for it with (ironically) less effective and efficient
government actions and deliberations.
One important point is to distinguish between records which are (in the
parlance of our state) "exempt from disclosure", and those that are not.
Exemptions are generally developed as part of the legislative process by
elected representatives. I have no problem with that, and believe such
records should not be released to the public. Those exemptions are ideally
developed in an open legislative process. Many states, for example, have
exactly such exemptions in place for the kind of "private"
deliberations John cites. What should not happen, however, are arbitrary
barriers to records that are not exempt from disclosure, erected by members
of an unelected bureaucracy. Most of the so called "harassing"
requests have nothing to do with whether a record is exempt or not.
In addition, there are also legitimate concerns about access to details of
interest to identity thieves. This is one of the reasons why many public
records - otherwise open to public access - are not readily available on the
internet. To be honest, this is still an area where the technical capability
is far outpacing policy tools.
Regarding news organizations, I often find representatives of such
organizations are more concerned with "special access" to otherwise exempt
personal information. I'm also opposed to that.
A proper public access law in my opinion (1) respects privacy; (2) starts
with an assumption that all records are open; (3) builds exemptions to that
openness via an open legislative process; and (4) supports the development
of systems to deliver on these commitments. In my opinion, the waste is not
related to the nature of the requests or the requestor; the waste is due to
a failure to meet these 4 parameters.
The problem I have with trying to control the occasional harasser is that
its not going to be possible without stifling legitimate access.
Its kind of like saying some folks kill people with guns, therefore we have
to severely limit all private use of guns.
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
Phone: (503)988-3741
Fax: (503)988-3754
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance To unsubscribe from
this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE
RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
