FOI FYI

SPJ, SPLC object to proposed FERPA changes that would increase school secrecy

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing rule changes for interpreting and implementing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and they would not bode well for journalists or the ability to hold schools accountable. The proposals would make secret any education records, even if they don't have any information identifying individual students, if a school believes someone could figure out who the student is or if the school believes the requester knows who the records might pertain to. This is ludicrous and if passed would cause schools to make everything secret, even statistical information, saying that someone might guess who the records refer to. It gets sillier. The DOE uses the example of a candidate who is running for office rumored to have been disciplined decades ago in school for plagiarism. A reporter requests records regarding plagiarism in a specific year, without the name. DOE urges schools to deny the request, saying the reporter could figure out whether the candidate plagiarized or not, hurting the candidate's privacy. Gads! While the DOE claims to apply a test to balance privacy with the public interest, that example (and others they use) completely ignores the public interest. People need to know if a candidate is a cheater to make an informed vote. The department uses other examples where the public need to know far outweighs an individual's privacy. On Thursday, SPJ sent a letter to DOE urging them to drop this secrecy-oriented rule change for what they call "targeted requests." Also, SPJ urged DOE to clarify for universities that parking tickets are not secret educational records and should be released as a check on preferential treatment and other problems. Despite court rulings saying university parking tickets are not secret under FERPA, many universities continue to claim they are secret educational records. On Monday, the Student Press Law Center also spoke out, sending a letter objecting to the proposed rules.

University of Mississippi releases secret donor agreement for journalism department

The University of Mississippi has agreed to release to the public an agreement that was previously kept secret regarding a donor's $5.3 million contribution to the university's department of journalism. The donation was given to the university foundation to make the journalism department a school, but details about the agreement were kept secret, even to journalism faculty, according to a story by Mississippi Public Broadcasting. When the MPB reporter went after the document, the university chancellor relented and released it. Kudos to government transparency at the University of Mississippi, which is a good thing considering the journalism department houses the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information!

Iowa governor wants agencies to start charging for attorneys reviewing records requests

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver wants state agencies to start charging requesters for the cost of attorneys reviewing public records requests (see Associated Press story). This is dangerous stuff. It's bad enough when an agency tries to charge for search and retrieval time, and then high copying costs. But adding attorney fees for reviewing requests will make some requests too costly for citizens and journalists. And philosophically it's just wrong. Why should a citizen have to pay an agency to figure out the law? Iowa state law says a "reasonable fee" can be charged to retrieve, copy and supervise the examination of records, and that "Actual costs shall include only those expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of, and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses." I consider the agency considering whether the record is public or not as an ordinary expense. I shouldn't have to pay a lot more money because an agency doesn't even know the public records law and needs an attorney to look at my request. The story suggests that it's a gray area nationwide and that the government has a strong leg to stand on, but a quick check of how this is done nationwide using the Reporters Committee Open Government Guide comparison Web site, shows that many states don't allow this kind of overcharging practice. While Maryland, Maine and a few other states directly allow the charging of attorney fees for reviewing requests when preparing records, Iowa should follow the more sane states that don't allow such fees to be added to requests, particularly when someone just wants to see some public records for noncommercial uses, including Florida, Minnesota, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Journalists should not just shrug and walk away, taking what the officials say as gospel and accepting the fate of increased secrecy. Turn and fight!

 

Bringing public records home: EveryBlock makes public data relevant to people's lives

This is a cool new pilot project that could have amazing ramifications for freedom of information and news: www.everyblock.com. This Web site, launched earlier this year, provides people daily updates of news, crime, new businesses, road construction plans, movie filming permits, and tons of other information within blocks of their own homes. Led by Adrian Holovaty (major guru in online journalism who did great work for washingtonpost.com), EveryBlock is starting with Chicago, San Francisco and New York City. Adrian presented his Web site at the NFOIC conference Saturday in Philadelphia. They have collected a ton of data for each city, including building permits, business licenses, zoning, crime logs, etc., and people are provided daily updates for their neighborhood and within blocks of their own homes. What is amazing is they have gotten the police departments and other agencies to provide the information daily so it's always fresh. Their Web site also finds stories that mention addresses, providing citizens news that his hyper-hyper local. Adrian said that when the initial two-year Knight Foundation-funded (no ads or pop-ups!) cycle is over, the software will be available to anyone. While some news organizations and government agencies have done similar types of online displays (e.g., location of sex offenders), I have not found them to be as comprehensive and useful as this.

The other neat thing about this, which could bolster open records laws, is that citizens are demanding more information. They find out about, say, a burglary next door, but because the data rely on basic blotter data (date, block number, and a few words describing it), citizens are asking for more information, such as the full incident report with narrative. People want to know the details to protect themselves. The Web site suggests they contact the agencies to request the records. Also, Adrian said, the Web site might start allowing people to sign a petition asking for more information to be public. So no longer is it a few journalists and commercial information providers demanding public records - it will be thousands of citizens. That speaks loudly to elected officials. People do support FOI when they see the benefits!

 

 

Locy urges journalists: 'It's time to turn and fight'

Toni Locy says she never thought a federal shield law was needed. That is, until she ended up facing nearly $50,000 in fines and potential jail time for doing her job. That's what she told a gathering that I attended Saturday at the annual National Freedom of Information Coalition conference in Philadelphia. Locy made her arguments Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals in hopes of not having to reveal confidential sources she can't even remember (see a great summary provided by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. We need some shield protection at the federal level, just as we have in 36 states. And unfortunately, journalists as a whole seem a little cowed, for whatever reason. "It's time to stop running," Locy said to the crowd. "It's time to turn and fight. If we don't fight for the First Amendment, who will?" ... "We, in journalism, have allowed proponents of government secrecy to define our terms... There is this fear, this absolute fear in the news business right now that needs to be corralled."

Locy is right. Many people at the NFOIC conference lamented that they run across so many journalists who won't write about secrecy or public records denials, saying it's "insider baseball" and that readers don't care. That's a load of hooey. According to my research, readers do care a lot, particularly when it involves records about tax dollars and public safety (they don't care when it comes to records with privacy elements, such as concealed weapons permits). And it's not insider baseball. When officials say "no" to a journalist, they are saying "no" to that journalist's community of thousands or millions of people. Those people deserve to know.

It's possible we will see a final shield law bill emerge from the U.S. Senate in the next few weeks (the House already approved a good version of it). The Senate version is likely to include language that makes some journalists uncomfortable, as it attempts to define who is covered, therefore potentially creating a separate category for journalists (slippery slope toward licensing - you give special rights to journalists then you can take them away). At Saturday's meeting Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the crowd that the Senate version will likely cover some bloggers and others who commit acts of journalism. And that's good, similar to the shield laws just passed in Hawaii and Maine (see previous FOI FYI posts on those shield laws). Some people might quibble at the language, and it won't be perfect, but the reality is we - the people - need a federal shield law to prevent government bullying and control of information. And we need it now before the momentum is lost. Newspapers need to write editorials and stories about the horrendous assaults on freedom of information and press rights. Media organizations need to sue for records, and defend against fishing subpoenas. We need to stop running.

It's time to turn and fight.

Locy arguments begin Friday, then she speaks in Philly to FOI crowd

Toni Locy, the former USA Today reporter who could face huge fines for failing to reveal her confidential sources, will argue her appeal Friday at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. She wrote about the 2001 anthrax mailings, naming Steven Hatfill as a person of interest, and now Hatfill wants to find out who her source was on that. A judge has told her she has to cough up the information, which she says she can't remember, or pay escalating fines of up to $5,000 a day. After she's done with her arguments she'll have to skidaddle to Philadelphia where on Saturday she will give the keynote address for the National Freedom of Information Coalition annual conference. That's one of the best meetings in the country for sharing ideas and meeting people interested in freedom of information. The organization, headed by Charles Davis from the University of Missouri-Columbia, also coordinates coalitions for open government in nearly every state. See the NFOIC site for more information and for a list of member coalitions.

Got suggestions for FOI FYI blog content?

Do you read the FOI FYI blog? I guess you do if you read this. Then we need your feedback. We here at SPJ are thinking about how to better serve members and that includes through the blogs. One suggestion batted around this past week was to ditch the LDF blog and move all press freedom issues into this FOI FYI blog (maybe renaming the FOI page "Press Freedoms"). That way we can tackle all issues regarding a journalist's right to gather news and information, including access to public records, meetings, places, protecting sources, and defending against attempts to censor and bully. What do you think? What would you like to see more of here? More tips? Ask and expert? Press freedom news? Let me know at cuillier@email.arizona.edu. Thanks! David Cuillier (SPJ FOI Committee chair)

Wisconsin AG says it's OK for police to release some information from motor vehicle records

The Wisconsin attorney general released an opinion saying it's OK for police to release information they obtained from motor vehicle records. Several papers asked for the opinion because police agencies were redacting information from police reports, including names, saying that information is in driver's records (which are protected under the Drivers Privacy Protection Act). The AG said, no to the police. If they have information in a police report, even if it would be private in motor vehicle records, the agency can't keep it secret claiming the federal DPPA makes it secret. The DPPA does not regulate secondary use of the information, only release from motor vehicle records. See story.

South Carolina paper pushes for county administrator salaries

Here's a great example of a newspaper making sure county administrators are held accountable. The Anderson Independent-Mail requested the salaries of administrators in three counties. Two complied and one is resisting. So the newspaper wrote about it. Now, some journalists say it's silly to write stories when an agency denies a public records request, that the public doesn't care and it's insider baseball. Not true. Check out the story, but more important, read the comments from the public right below on the online feedback part. Clearly, citizens want to know when an agency is being secretive, especially when it comes to tax dollars. When officials deny a public records request, they aren't saying "no" to you. They are saying "no" to the thousands or millions of people in your community. Tell those people!

City attorney in Connecticut to release names of 90 laid off employees

City officials in Bridgeport, Conn., agreed to release the names of 90 city employees who will be laid off, but only after a fight with the newspaper and asking the employees if they thought release would be an invasion of their privacy. After the city attorney asked the employees if they had problems with their impending firings being public, he said it appears it wouldn't be a problem, so they will release the names. Umm, last time I checked it's not up to the employee to determine what is public and what isn't. The Connecticut Post was right to push the issue because of rumors that the mayor was laying off supporters of his political opponent. Also, the paper wants to see for sure that the mayor is laying off that many people, as claimed. Good job, Connecticut Post! See story.

Hawaii Legislature passes nation's 36th shield law

The Hawaii Legislature approved the nation's 36th shield law and now the bill goes to the govenor for signing. Similar to the Maine shield law passed a few weeks ago, this legislation allows protections for anyone committing acts of journalism, whether they work for a newspaper, produce an ongoing blog gathering information for the public good, or publishing a neighborhood newsletter. The definition of those provided protection against willy-nilly subpoenas includes anyone who "has regularly and materially participated in the reporting or publishing of news or information of substantial public interest for the purpose of dissemination to the general public by the means of tangible or electronic media." So the law protects journalists of all stripes and at the same time does not create a legal government-imposed classification of journalists (which is a slippery slope toward licensing and government control of journalists). Seems to make good sense. See story.

Cow secrecy legislation doesn't get out of the barn

Legislation in the proposed farm bill that would have made the location of cows secret in the United States appears to have stalled, according to word from Patrice McDermott from Openthegovernment.org. Her organization led an effort to oppose the legislation with a letter signed by 28 organization, including SPJ (see FOI FYI blog entry from November). Speaking out can make a difference!

E-mail and text messages topical FOI issues

It seems like this is the year of e-mail and text messages in the FOI world, emphasized by the Detroit mayor affair. A First Amendment Center intern wrote a nice overview of the issue. Also, check out a great summary of other recent developments in e-mail at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

South Carolina closes concealed weapons permit records

The governor of South Carolina signed into law a measure that makes concealed weapons permits secret (see story). About a half dozen state legislatures have considered similar secrecy laws this year, pushed by gun enthusiasts who say those records invade their privacy. Some of the laws were spurred by public outrage following The Roanoke Times posting permit holders online with their street addresses. This is illustrative of how journalists need to weigh the benefits to the public versus the negative ramifications when posting data online. How we use records and data can create a backlash if the public purpose is not apparent to citizens. It's also an example of how a strong lobbying group can push through secrecy laws if it has public support on its side.

Tribal council stifles public testimony at meeting

Native American tribes are sovereign nations, and as such, come up with their own rules and laws on public meetings and open records, and one tribal council appeared reluctant to be forthcoming with information tribal members demanded to know. Members of the Lumbee Tribe in North Carolina asked their council members questions about tribal leaders' relatives getting special treatment. The council cut the speakers off and adjourned the meeting, according to a story in The Fayetteville Observer. Covering tribes can be challenging, for tribal journalists and non-tribal journalists, but it is still possible. For a great guide to covering news in Indian Country, see the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Guide to American Indian Law, and also check out the Native American Journalists Association Web site.