FOIA Panel Summary
Notetaker:Brendan Cox
Discussion Leader: Scott Powell
3/18/09
About half of the take-away cards I was responsible for were referential to the issues of access and timeliness. Alyssa wrote that the “grey areas” of the law could (and should) be “easily cleared up” and that this clarification would lead to a transparency that would benefit government and its perceived credibility. Scott wrote that timeliness seemed, to him, to be the “overriding issue,” and felt that the commission should be better equipped to handle appeals in a timely manner. This idea brings us to the inevitable question of databasing and internet access; however, Amy wrote that Rachel Rudnik is “crazy” if she thinks online dissemination will be made mandatory.
The other half of the students whose cards I was responsible for were most impressed by the power of FOIA laws in the hands of an informed and educated journalist. Amanda was surprised by the amount of information that is available to the public, and Aaron wrote that the FOIA is an “essential tool” for finding obscure or hidden stories. Shane was surprised that requesters of information are not required to provide an explanation for their request. Obviously this makes the tool that much more powerful. It also raises ethical concerns when it comes to the safety, privacy, and well-being of public officials. Suffice it to say that the general response, both in the take-away cards and in my portion of the discussion, was positive; most students seemed to find the panel an educational and stimulating experience.
Regarding the segment of the discussion that was mediated by Britton Taylor, two main issues were discussed. First, students debated John Lender’s description of the FOIA laws as being a “weapon,” and secondly, they discussed the applicability of an online system for FOIA processing.
Students seemed to agree, generally speaking, that it’s okay to view FOIA laws as being a weapon (“The law,” said Mitchell Pearlman, an attorney who teaches Law of Libel and Communications here, “can be used as both a sword and a shield.”). Students discussed the leverage provided by the FOIA, and tended to agree that since this “leverage” was legal in nature, it is okay (i.e., ethical) to view the law as a sword in this instance. As a matter of mindset, students seemed also to agree that this acceptance doesn’t mean that we need to maintain an aggressive or threatening posture and use the FOIA as justification; on the contrary, we should use the threat of a commission appeal as something of a last resort (e.g., when an official is utterly reluctant to reveal public information essential to a story). Even if we don’t see the FOIA as a weapon, one student said, it is still an essential tool that we should utilize in order to find more stories.
When it came to online FOIA processing and/or digital records databasing, one student pointed out that broader net access to records might streamline the FOIA commission’s operation, but would not entirely eliminate the need for it (it’s interesting to note that, which the exception of New York, Connecticut is the only U.S. state with a dedicated commission responsible for FOIA concerns). Another student pointed out that since newsrooms have been increasingly forced, due to financial restrictions, to scale back their reporting staff, online access might become more and more necessary.
Two problems were addressed regarding online record access. First of all, databasing hundreds of years worth of records would be an enormous, time-consuming, and expensive task requiring more resources than are now available to either the government or the FOIA commission. Secondly, one student pointed out the security and credibility risks inherent in using the net as a means of communication. One can never trust information on the web 100 percent, he said, and a notarized paper document would likely be regarded as a more credible source.
Finally, in the debate on internet records access, we discussed the impracticality of net access vis-à-vis lawmaker support. Why would politicians or government officials want to allocate precious resources to digital databasing efforts when it would only make them more vulnerable to public scrutiny? Of course this analysis works on the presumption that politicians are largely dishonest and don’t want to maintain transparency. This is obviously a matter of one’s opinion and personal politics and is up to his or her individual discretion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that having records in hard copy is best because, much like newspapers, the print versions are tangible. You can hold a record in your hands and see that it hasn't been altered in any way, it holds more credibility if it is printed out versus online, I think so anyways. Similar to the way journalists make a supplement to their articles online, I think copies could be made of these documents which could be posted online. I don't think, however movin everything to computers is smart because if a computer is accessed illegally through hacking, or there's a crash in a system, many valuable records could be lost. Just a thought, that, just like newspapers, we should lessen the amount of hard copy documents--tailor down the number--but still keep some around which can't practically be formatted for electronic viewing.
ReplyDelete