... I'm not sure yet what the history of how this policy was formed, but it needs to be amended IMMEDIATELY. We must also add specific wording in an ordinance for protection of whistleblowers, protection of private information (SSNs, medical information) that may come in an email to a commissioner, and close the loophole that would allow Commissioners to use private e-mail accounts to send county-related work product that would normally be covered by the Open Records Act.
Right now, the ORA and the Knox County Policy only work to encourage County Officials to use Yahoo, Gmail, or other personal accounts that provide no accountability.
Submitted by Mike Cohen on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 7:21am.
Let's not rush to judgement...especially for political expediency. Policies don't generally need to be changed "immediately" but in an orderly, well-thought out fashion that results in a better long term policy. Facts should be checked, legal opinions gathered, the public heard and then changes should be made.
First off, any county policy is superceded by the state law which governs it. Medical records are exempted under the Open Records law and protected by federal law.
Secondly, using a Google or Yahoo account offers no legal protection if the e-mails are sent/recieved through a government computer or in a person's capacity as a public official.
The Open Record and Open Meeting act have been very, very good for Tennessee. They have not only increased public access to documents, they have changed the mindset in government because you know everything is at least potentially a public document.
It's easy to cite transient local political issues and talk about problems with the law or policy that need to be changed. We need to tread lightly. Medical records is a black and white issue. Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good.
The true value of open meeting and open records laws, about which I feel very strongly, is that there are as few exemptions as possible.
If you want whistleblowers exempted, set up a whistleblower program and try to set it up in a way that it would be considered a legitimate ongoing criminal investigation...another of the few, but logical, exemptions.
The open meeting and open records laws have served Tennessee well. We are better off for having them in place and as strong as possible.
Submitted by reform4 on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 11:05am.
True, it doesn't need to be written at the next commission meeting. But it doesn't need to take six months like it did to appoint 4th District replacements either. There are a number of complex issues to work out, but the existing Privacy act goes too far beyond the Open Records Act, and needs to be brought back in line.
Agreed that any revised privacy policy would need to reference any current or future whistleblower provisions (and shouldn't try to create a whistleblower provision... I'm not sure exactly what we have right now at the county level).
With respect to Google/Yahoo- wouldn't you agree that commissioner sending e-mails related to county business from their home PCs should still be covered? Otherwise, that's a glaring loophole, especially given the part-time (hah!) nature of the Commissioner position. I'm sure a lot of work is done from home.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B Link...
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 8:07am.
Cohen: "Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good."
A couple of questions here, Mike:
Would a local "whistleblower" policy necessarily afford the "whistleblower" anonymity, or would it simply afford him/her protection against retaliation? (I had imagined the latter.)
Also, what DeFreese seems to be suggesting is that the current local policy (sans "whistleblower" instruction) should afford citizens anonymity. Are you aware of *any* precedent for this interpretation of the ORA, irrespective of the computer being used by the elected official to receive the coorespondence? (I'm not.)
Submitted by Mike Cohen on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 8:27am.
While I understand why Commissioner DeFreese feels that way, the fact is that anyone who has wanted to keep some document from the public may have had noble intentions and the public good at heart. But giving people in government leeway to determine what is public record and what is not is a slippery slope and creates the possibility that someone can claim it is covered by an exemption.
I'd strongly urge folks to contact Frank Gibson at the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. Link... Frank is a former reporter and reader advocate at The Tennessean. He can address these issues far more knowledgably than I can. Which probably isn't much of a compliment...but its well intended.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 9:15am.
Thanks, Mike. We already heard from Frank Gibson on WBIR yesterday, thusly:
"(DeFreese) said she believes the Constitutional right to free speech trumps the Open Records Act."
"However, Frank Gibson with the Tennessee Open Records Coalition says he believes DeFreese's correspondence and phone conversations with Knox County citizens regarding county spending do fall under the Open Records Act."
"If they were received in transaction of official business, then I can't think of any exemption that would mean the law doesn't apply," said Gibson. "Ethically speaking, I don't know why (Commissioner DeFreese) would want to withhold it."
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree with your read on this one. It just seems that an ORA interpretation that would afford "citizen reporters" anonymity, rather than just protection against retaliation, would degrade the whole "whistleblowing" process, and invite irresponsibility on the part of citizens lodging complaints.
I'll cite this guy, why36not commenting about the p-card audit on the N-S site at 6:42 this morning:
"He has said we should ALL read the response and then judge him. BS I am not about to read all 82 pages of that audit report ans his response and I will bet that very few did so."
Irrespective of the particular issue or the particular players relating to this guy's comment, how the hell can an elected official possibly counter the complaints of someone so adamently opposed to READING THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH HE PRESUMES TO OPINE (in 618 comments, so far)? And why on earth would we want public policy to afford him the right to do that anonymously (to other elected officials, I mean)?
Submitted by reform4 on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 11:15am.
I would disagree with Frank that the e-mails fall under the Open Records Act (see above for reasoning), but that they do fall under the current Knox Co Privacy Policy listed n the web site.
Proving retaliation is difficult, and recent court rulings and actions by the Justice Department have really weakened whistelblower protections. I don't see the "no retaliation" policy as workable, the average worker or citizen just doesn't have the legal muscle to make it a fair fight.
With respect to irresponsibility: (a) I don't think why36not is a good example to use (I'll decline further comment here...), and (b) if a Commissioner things a particular e-mail is irresponsible or from a nutjob, they don't have to respond to every e-mail. Besides, if someone wants to lodge an anonymous complaint, they can always use a 'throwaway' Yahoo address to send it in. The current privacy policy allows for intimidation tactics like we've seen. Open the Commissioner's work product, yes, but let's not have a privacy policy that allows for the development of 'enemies lists.'
I think there's another Ragsdale play afoot here, but I'll keep my theories to myself for now.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B Link...
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Tue, 2008/04/01 - 12:49pm.
I think there's another Ragsdale play afoot here, but I'll keep my theories to myself for now.
Was the real reason behind Ragsdale's attempt a need to learn the identities of the people talking with DeFreese? The thought process being to intimidate the alleged "advisers"? Isn't it more likely that Commissioner DeFreese is just the typical South Knox Countian who won't be pushed around?
The problem is on the sixth floor. The problem is Mike Ragsdale.
Let's not rush to judgement...especially for political expediency. Policies don't generally need to be changed "immediately" but in an orderly, well-thought out fashion that results in a better long term policy. Facts should be checked, legal opinions gathered, the public heard and then changes should be made.
First off, any county policy is superceded by the state law which governs it. Medical records are exempted under the Open Records law and protected by federal law.
Secondly, using a Google or Yahoo account offers no legal protection if the e-mails are sent/recieved through a government computer or in a person's capacity as a public official.
The Open Record and Open Meeting act have been very, very good for Tennessee. They have not only increased public access to documents, they have changed the mindset in government because you know everything is at least potentially a public document.
It's easy to cite transient local political issues and talk about problems with the law or policy that need to be changed. We need to tread lightly. Medical records is a black and white issue. Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good.
The true value of open meeting and open records laws, about which I feel very strongly, is that there are as few exemptions as possible.
If you want whistleblowers exempted, set up a whistleblower program and try to set it up in a way that it would be considered a legitimate ongoing criminal investigation...another of the few, but logical, exemptions.
The open meeting and open records laws have served Tennessee well. We are better off for having them in place and as strong as possible.
True, it doesn't need to be written at the next commission meeting. But it doesn't need to take six months like it did to appoint 4th District replacements either. There are a number of complex issues to work out, but the existing Privacy act goes too far beyond the Open Records Act, and needs to be brought back in line.
Agreed that any revised privacy policy would need to reference any current or future whistleblower provisions (and shouldn't try to create a whistleblower provision... I'm not sure exactly what we have right now at the county level).
With respect to Google/Yahoo- wouldn't you agree that commissioner sending e-mails related to county business from their home PCs should still be covered? Otherwise, that's a glaring loophole, especially given the part-time (hah!) nature of the Commissioner position. I'm sure a lot of work is done from home.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
Link...
Cohen: "Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good."
A couple of questions here, Mike:
Would a local "whistleblower" policy necessarily afford the "whistleblower" anonymity, or would it simply afford him/her protection against retaliation? (I had imagined the latter.)
Also, what DeFreese seems to be suggesting is that the current local policy (sans "whistleblower" instruction) should afford citizens anonymity. Are you aware of *any* precedent for this interpretation of the ORA, irrespective of the computer being used by the elected official to receive the coorespondence? (I'm not.)
Thanks.
While I understand why Commissioner DeFreese feels that way, the fact is that anyone who has wanted to keep some document from the public may have had noble intentions and the public good at heart. But giving people in government leeway to determine what is public record and what is not is a slippery slope and creates the possibility that someone can claim it is covered by an exemption.
I'd strongly urge folks to contact Frank Gibson at the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. Link... Frank is a former reporter and reader advocate at The Tennessean. He can address these issues far more knowledgably than I can. Which probably isn't much of a compliment...but its well intended.
Thanks, Mike. We already heard from Frank Gibson on WBIR yesterday, thusly:
"(DeFreese) said she believes the Constitutional right to free speech trumps the Open Records Act."
"However, Frank Gibson with the Tennessee Open Records Coalition says he believes DeFreese's correspondence and phone conversations with Knox County citizens regarding county spending do fall under the Open Records Act."
"If they were received in transaction of official business, then I can't think of any exemption that would mean the law doesn't apply," said Gibson. "Ethically speaking, I don't know why (Commissioner DeFreese) would want to withhold it."
Link...
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree with your read on this one. It just seems that an ORA interpretation that would afford "citizen reporters" anonymity, rather than just protection against retaliation, would degrade the whole "whistleblowing" process, and invite irresponsibility on the part of citizens lodging complaints.
I'll cite this guy, why36not commenting about the p-card audit on the N-S site at 6:42 this morning:
"He has said we should ALL read the response and then judge him. BS I am not about to read all 82 pages of that audit report ans his response and I will bet that very few did so."
Link...
Irrespective of the particular issue or the particular players relating to this guy's comment, how the hell can an elected official possibly counter the complaints of someone so adamently opposed to READING THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH HE PRESUMES TO OPINE (in 618 comments, so far)? And why on earth would we want public policy to afford him the right to do that anonymously (to other elected officials, I mean)?
I would disagree with Frank that the e-mails fall under the Open Records Act (see above for reasoning), but that they do fall under the current Knox Co Privacy Policy listed n the web site.
Proving retaliation is difficult, and recent court rulings and actions by the Justice Department have really weakened whistelblower protections. I don't see the "no retaliation" policy as workable, the average worker or citizen just doesn't have the legal muscle to make it a fair fight.
With respect to irresponsibility: (a) I don't think why36not is a good example to use (I'll decline further comment here...), and (b) if a Commissioner things a particular e-mail is irresponsible or from a nutjob, they don't have to respond to every e-mail. Besides, if someone wants to lodge an anonymous complaint, they can always use a 'throwaway' Yahoo address to send it in. The current privacy policy allows for intimidation tactics like we've seen. Open the Commissioner's work product, yes, but let's not have a privacy policy that allows for the development of 'enemies lists.'
I think there's another Ragsdale play afoot here, but I'll keep my theories to myself for now.
-----------------------------------------
Fighting for Reform and Representation, Fourth District
Steve Drevik, Commission Seat 4-B
Link...
I think there's another Ragsdale play afoot here, but I'll keep my theories to myself for now.
Was the real reason behind Ragsdale's attempt a need to learn the identities of the people talking with DeFreese? The thought process being to intimidate the alleged "advisers"? Isn't it more likely that Commissioner DeFreese is just the typical South Knox Countian who won't be pushed around?
The problem is on the sixth floor. The problem is Mike Ragsdale.
Post new comment