3/18 - FOI Panel Summary, Katie Bushey (Eli Pearlstein)

FOI Panel Summary
Notetaker : Katie Bushey
Discussion leader: Eli Pearlstein

Tom, Rachel and John all represented different aspects of the FOI act. For Tom, as the public education officer at the FOI office understood the grey areas of the law, but could not relate to them on the same level as Rachel, and especially as John. At times throughout the panel, John seemed at odds with Rachel and Tom; he was, after all, criticizing the process that Tom and Rachel advocated.

Tom focused on what exactly is open to the public. He explained what information is most often asked for, and who asks for it (journalists, surprisingly, were not at the top of that list.) His most important piece of information was the three E’s: exemptions, exceptions and exclusions. Although these three things did not specifically detail what is outside of the realm of public information, it nonetheless was helpful to keep in mind, considering the list of exceptions to information keeps growing. Finally, Tom outlined for the class how the council works, and what happens when complaints are made.

Rachel offered insight into the world of giving out information. As an employee at UConn, Rachel told the class that she tries hard to remind herself, and her coworkers, that everything they do is in the public eye. She explained the often-tedious task of locating records. She said that although some information, like a coach’s contract, is easy to recover, other records are not. She said that for a 100-year-old record, for instance, she might be required to travel to anyone of the regional campuses to locate it, even though her office is located at Storrs. She said that UConn receives about 150 requests for information a year, and they are usually from firms looking to do business with the university and want to look into why they lost a bid, or people interested in coach’s whose contracts are about to come up. She said that this year the university had already received an astounding 37 requests. Finally, she mentioned that she never asks personal information of a person making the request. There can be no discrimination to whom gets information, she said, so she does not ask anything of them. She also addressed the issue of “promptness,” and said in her office, a notification is sent within a day to let the requester know that she is looking for their record.

John, as a journalist, has personally requested many records. He told the class that the FOI act was a “hammer” that needed to be brought down at times, and recounted the complaints he has made recently against the ethics commission because they would not issue him records. He told us that union employees and clerks are often hard to get information about, but that any well-known public official was “fair game.” John told the class that although the law guarantees that you will have the information, it does not say when.

At this point, the discussion broke down into a three-way argument. John was adamant that the four-day grace period is often used to find a way to not give out information, while Rachel reminded him that often records are not that easy to locate. Tome stepped in periodically to remind them what the law actually was, but none of the three saw eye-to-eye. What was stressed by all three, however, was that the sooner you request records, the better. John told us not to hesitate in leveling a complaint; he said that often, it gets results better. All three also told us that after four days, you should have at least been notified that your request has been received. And although none of them could define “promptness,” they told us to use our heads: if you were requesting Jim Calhoun’s contract with UConn, you should be able to get that almost immediately. How long it takes to get your information, they said, depends on what you are asking for.

In the discussion after, Eli first asked the class whether or not we thought it necessary for John to write stories about agencies that delayed in giving out information. John said that he often did this as a way to show the public that the government is not actually working in their best interest. Aaron responded first to the question, saying that those agencies should receive a “scarlet letter” for failing to uphold their duty. Alyssa agreed, adding that our role as journalists is to question the status quo and remain guard dogs for society.

Eli asked if the class thought there was a central way to define “promptness.” Emily said that UConn seems to have their records spread out, and one way to resolve any delay would be to store all records together. Prof. Dufresne reminded us that there are many records, and many very old; a central depository, unfortunately is far off. Beren agreed, and added that this idea may work for new records, but never old ones.

Continuing on the idea of promptness, Eli asked if there should be timelines assigned based on the record itself. John had mentioned that he believed some agencies held information back so as not to have to give it out. Eli wondered if a defined timeline for certain records would at least resolve some of this issue. One student mentioned that Rachel constantly shot down the idea of creating a database of records, or being able to say before locating the record how long it would take. The same student added that there has to be some mathematical way of doing this, but had no solution. Joe also mentioned that Rachel liked the idea of everything having a timeline, but had said it was not feasible. Most of the class seemed to think that timelines would resolve some issues, but as to what records could be guaranteed when, no one had any ideas.

Eli also mentioned fining agencies that refused records. Dufresne cut in to tell us that some fines are levied, but that are for the most part ineffective. He also mentioned that fining is done very little.

Eli then asked about the information itself. He wondered if certain information that is brought to light should not be brought in front of a panel to discuss the appropriateness of it. Amy said in response that what information can be published has to depend on the publication itself; for instance, what may be inappropriate for Highlight’s would be suitable for Playboy.

Finally, Eli asked what should be done with information that is not entirely pertinent to the case. An example given by John was with the Chesire murders. Because the murders had been such big news, John had said, lots of information that maybe should not have been printed was. In response, one student said that newspapers should maintain some self-censorship, and definitely some prior restraint. They said that papers must make their own decisions on how to use the information they attain, and deal with the consequences of libeling someone
.
In conclusion, Prof. Dufresne asked if there was anything still unclear. Someone brought up the idea of exclusions: how can we trust the information that is withheld should be? He said that this was a matter of trust, and that trust is really what drives the laws.

There were three main ideas expressed in the takeaway cards. The first idea focused on was that of “promptness.” Most students agreed that the definition of promptness was vague, and needed to be resolved. The “grey areas” of the law were mentioned also; such as what information is available to the public and the time it takes to get information. The final idea that was stressed in the cards was the usefulness of these laws for journalists, and how they should be used. Some disagreed with Lender’s idea of the law being a “hammer” for journalists, while others liked this metaphor.

Definitely the ideas that we grappled with the most were promptness and exceptions. How to use these laws as a tool for journalists was also a large concern, but mostly our rights within the law was most questioned.

Eli Pearlstein: “The grey areas of “promptness” were definitely interesting and unresolved.

Patrick: The breathing room allowed under these laws is fascinating to the point that it gives both parties a great opportunity to manipulate the system. Truly exquisite.

Emily Abbate: I’ve learned a lot about the FOI act since being at UConn – it’s interesting to hear about these things from professionals. Ultimately, the whole concept of timelines with what means “prompt” sheds new light onto the regulations.

B. Cox: the most salient point discussed was the issue of “promptness” and the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “without undue delay.” Is it really too difficult to set a real limit based on different format, age, and /or size?

Britton Taylor: I find it interesting how John used the FOIs as a weapon of sorts, when he said “I hold a hammer over their heads.”

Jesse Grab: The most important topic that kept coming up was the future of FOI, specifically if there is a way to database this information.

Daniella Henry: Jon Lender was very helpful in learning what journalists can do when trying to get info.

Beren Jones: FOI laws provide a key part of the transparency needed to run an effective and fair government.

Anon: The presentation was very interesting because I never realized how hard it can be to attain information. I don’t like the “grey area” and I can see how many problems it could potentially cause, hopefully in the future this will be changed.