3/18 - FOI Panel Summary, Beren Jones (Scott Powell)

FOIA Panel Summary
Notetaker: Beren Jones
Discussion Leader: Britton Taylor
3/18/09

The FOI panel allowed for a greater understanding not only of a complicated topic, but the ways in which the topic was viewed, and used, by parties on all sides of the issue. Though the panel focused mostly on the past (e.g. how and why the law was formed and how the law has been used and interpreted), Scott’s portion of the discussion focused mainly on the future of the law and how the law might be improved.

Scott started off the discussion by probing the class’ opinion about whether or not there should be a caveat within the FOI Act that grants citizens the right to speak at public meetings.

Pat responded by agreeing with the way the law is written as it is currently, stating that people should be granted access but shouldn’t be permitted to speak at the meetings, and that the public needs to obey the law in the manner in which it is written.

Professor Dufresne took the opportunity to interject and inform the class that at many public meetings, the public is permitted to speak via a segment of the meeting delineated as a public forum. He also stressed that this practice is optional for most meetings. Some matters, however, do require public discourse and input, and in those cases (e.g. changing zoning laws) a public hearing is required, and the public does have a right to speak at those venues.

Scott then moved on to question the current policy of allowing anonymity to members of the public requesting public records; he asked if it might be a good thing to not only know who is asking for the records, but to perform a background check on the person to attempt to prevent people from using the information for nefarious or harmful purposes.

The class was fairly unified in the response that while the concern is relevant, the practice of background checks was not something that they were willing to commit to for the marginal increase in safety the checks might provide.

Katie said that such a course of action would be a “slippery slope” and that the process needs to remain more objective than subjective as it could lead to a double-edged sword concerning the intent of the law.

Another student concurred, saying that they agreed with the concern shown for peoples’ safety by performing background checks, but that those checks would then kill the idea of having a public document in the first place. Chase agreed by pointing out that the sole requirement to look at a public document is to simply be a member of the public.

However, Professor Dufresne pointed out that some states have taken to posting the complete listings of gun ownership records online. While the states are within their rights to do so because the listings are matters of public record, their being posted online has raised a public outcry and made many people angry.

Scott then moved the discussion into how the commission might better aid journalists. He asked that because journalists are constantly on a deadline and make up a significant amount of the FOI requests, should the FOI commission step in sooner in favor of the journalist’s deadline when a request is made and the agency in question is dragging their feet to avoid getting the information to the journalist on time.

One student responded by agreeing that while maybe they should, the more relevant question is whether or not they are even able to, due to their limited resources and manpower.

Scott then asked if perhaps this could help rebound the economy by opening up jobs in the area. The student responded by emphasizing again that while it would be ideally beneficial, the FOI commission would still require more capital and other resources to do it. This prompted another student to suggest that the FOI commission pay for these new jobs with the money that it receives from fining the state agencies that violate the act.

Professor Dufresne then concluded the discussion by pointing out that the FOI commission has a backlog of approximately six to eight months and that timeliness is a problem currently and would be difficult to fix.

The take-away cards emphasized the complexity of the FOI laws and the vagueness of their wording, which, in turn, adds to their complexity and confusion. The cards talked about how that vagueness affects the timeliness of getting records released and how both sides use the law, and its wording, to their benefit and the others’ detriment.

Take-Away Cards:

Chase Carnot: The law definitely needs to be updated. I think the best thing to do if someone denies a request is just call the commission and put them on the phone.

Rowan McInnes: The panel discussion definitely cleared up a good deal of what goes on within the FOI commission, the process of requesting documents/information, etc. Before today it was all very confusing.

Mike Northup: A specific timeframe for releasing FOI records would be ideal, but because some records are less accessible or longer than others, people requesting the records must settle for getting them back “promptly”.

Stephen Ortiz: Officials will try to manipulate the system and prolong the time it takes to get you a record in effort to push it past deadline.

Katie Bushey: The various viewpoints on what a journalist’s “weapons” are was interesting.

Joe Callahan: - Meetings must be open to the public, have minutes available and must be notified to the public.
- Three E’s to the FOI Law: 1. Exemptions 2. Exceptions 3. Exclusions

Kate Monohan: I still don’t fully understand FOI, it seems vague in numerous areas and it seems like in many cases reporters can be manipulated when trying to obtain info.

Unnamed: It was clear among the panel of the friction between officials and journalists in interpreting the “openness” of records.