http://shrinkster.com/11dm 
            
Personal or political?
New redaction policy means less public access to Board of Supervisors
documents

By Sarah Phelan
› [log in to unmask]
8/20/08

The Board of Supervisors Clerk's Office has quietly begun redacting contact
information — including phone numbers, street addresses, and e-mail
addresses — from all communications sent to the supervisors by members of
the public.
The Clerk's Office will not redact personal information if individuals
indicate that they authorize its release, Clerk of the Board Angela Calvillo
wrote in a May 23 memo. Yet the policy shift brings to an end a
long-standing tradition in which members of the public could peruse copies
of all of the weekly communications to the Board simply by asking to see the
petitions and communications file.
Instead, Clerk's Office staff are now asking people which items they want to
see before letting them access the file, in case the requested items need to
be redacted.
"If it's a redacted item, it needs to be handled differently," Clerk's
Office deputy director Madeleine Licavoli explained, noting that a
Controller's Office report wouldn't need redactions, but public
communications would.
The COB's office does provide a one-line summary of each item in the Board's
weekly agenda packet, but it's hard to know which pieces are of interest
until they are read in full. And the public's contact information has always
provided a handy way for citizens to identify like-minded individuals and
for reporters to find story sources and material.
Licavoli said the new policy did not occur in response to specific incidents
or complaints, but as a result of a discussion about the need to redact
personal information. "The first time people encounter this policy, they
say, 'Whoa, what's this about?'" Licavoli acknowledged. "But we're trying to
protect personal information, not make things harder for people who just
want to look at them.
"We are always trying to expand what's available," Licavoli added, noting
that the Clerk's Office is working to ensure that when the supervisors
return from recess next month, people will be able to access redacted public
communications by viewing a CD in the Clerk's Office.
But open government advocates claim there is no provision for the redaction
policy under the California Public Records Act or the city's voter-approved
Sunshine Ordinance. Instead, they fear the new policy reflects a growing
trend of trying to scare people into believing that the public's right to
privacy trumps its right to know.
Sunshine advocate Kimo Crossman told the Guardian that the overwhelming
reason people need access to redacted contact information is for political
speech or technology-savvy new media outlets.
"The city is preventing it because they don't want to have organized citizen
push-back," Crossman said. "This is not about private personal information
like your blood pressure."
Like Crossman, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force member Rick Knee also opposes
the clerk's new requirement that people must request the release of their
contact information.
"There has to be a very narrow application of the redaction policy," Knee
told us. "If the law does not require it, the default is for disclosure."
Bob Stern of the Los Angeles-based Center of Governmental Studies told us he
understands the arguments for privacy. "But if an individual does not want
their contact information posted online, it should be an opt-out situation
at the very worst," Stern added.
But some blame the new policy on San Francisco's sunshine advocates, such as
Crossman, claiming it was their attempts to make databases to screen
Sunshine Ordinance Task Force appointees that led to the tightening of the
redaction policy.
"Certain people insisted that the Clerk of the Board make a policy, thereby
forcing them down this particular path," said Peter Scheer, executive
director of the California First Amendment Coalition. "These folks wanted a
confrontation, but they ended up worse off than [under] the ad hoc,
unarticulated policy that existed."
Scheer believes that if this redaction policy is contested, the government
could win. "If you're not a reporter, then people care more about their
privacy than access," he said.
"Everyone is terrified about identity theft," he continued. "There have been
all sorts of horror stories about the government inadvertently leaking
information. And anything the Clerk of the Board agrees to give to one
person, they have to give to everyone, including sleazebags who put it into
a big database and sell it to spammers and telemarketers."
But Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, believes that if
the case goes to court, the judge would conclude that this information is
presumed to be public. "To withhold information, you have to find a specific
public interest in keeping it confidential," Francke said.
Francke notes that the CPRA exempts, for example, the home addresses of
school district employees, but does not delegate the authority to create new
exemptions. "When you have rules that say apples, oranges, and bananas are
exempt, that provides evidence that fruit as a general category is not
exempt. The example of CPRA exemptions shows they were decided against a
background of documented, actual harassment, not the decision of a faceless
bureaucrat."
Francke believes public organizing is hindered by the new policy.
"The value of privacy is not one that the government decides," he said.
"It's your choice how private you want to be. It's your privacy, not the
government's. So unless they give you an informed opt-out choice, then what
they are managing is not privacy but government secrecy." 
Wednesday August 20, 2008

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]