Freedom of Information bill

[KBCraig]

NH deals with technology, and skirting open meetings laws.

http://gamma.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=078d688b-f896-4a32-99bc-d472dddab5f5

Right-to-Know in the Internet age

By KATHARINE WEBSTER
The Associated Press
Sunday, Nov. 13, 2005

Concord ? When two of three selectmen exchange e-mails on whether to buy a truck for the town, is that a meeting or a record? And are the e-mails public or private?

The state?s Right-to-Know Law doesn?t answer those questions now, at least not explicitly, so lawmakers and a legislative task force are hard at work on a bill to update it for the age of e-mail, online forums, video-conferencing and instant messaging.

The need is apparent. In 2001, the state Supreme Court ruled that state agencies must keep their computerized records in a form that?s accessible to the public, but the court urged the Legislature to tackle the details. The result is House Bill 626, which comes before the House Judiciary Committee for a vote on Tuesday.

Sponsors say it will not change the Right-to-Know Law substantially: It will simply clarify how and when it applies to electronic and telephonic communications and computerized records. They say they wrote it in broad terms to anticipate advances in technology.

Critics say the bill lacks details about how it applies to existing technologies, has no teeth and will encourage members of public boards, agencies and commissions to conduct more business out of public view.

New Hampshire is not the first state to enter the debate; many other states updated their ?sunshine? laws for the electronic age a decade or more ago.

Their experience shows that such updates are most successful when they deal with specific technology in detail, said Bill Chamberlin, a journalism professor at the University of Florida and director of the Citizen Access Project, which hosts a Web site comparing and ranking public access laws and in all 50 states.

The bill is clear on the subject of computerized government records. It says they should be kept in a form that can be copied using standard computer file formats, while ensuring that confidential information can be segregated from public information.

The bill is less technology-specific on the subject of meetings and communications outside meetings. It says that any time a quorum of a public body discusses official business in real time ? whether in person, electronically or telephonically ? that?s a public meeting, so the public must be given notice in advance and access.

Any other time a quorum ends up communicating about official business, whether at a social gathering or in any other way, the bill would require public officials to disclose the substance of their discussion at the next advertised meeting and before any vote on the issue. If the communications are written, copies must be made part of the public record.

?If you and I get together to discuss Larry?s pickup truck and whether or not we should buy it for the town highway department, that discussion has to be brought forward at the next meeting,? said Rep. John Thomas, R-Belmont, the bill?s chief sponsor and chairman of the task force.

Thomas says the same principle would apply to a sequence of e-mail exchanges or telephone calls if a quorum ended up participating.

Critics fear officials could evade the disclosure requirement ? as critics say some do now ? by claiming they were only exchanging views with one individual and didn?t know others were talking.

Rod Doherty, executive editor of Foster?s Daily Democrat, said he battled the Dover City Council on exactly that point last year, when a reporter found out councilors were exchanging views and assembling majorities via e-mail before meetings, then voting without any public discussion. The battle proved expensive, but the newspaper won.

Public officials know there?s no penalty for violating the law unless a dispute ends up in court, when the winner can seek attorney?s fees, Doherty said. Even then, he said, judges are extremely reluctant to levy fees against cash-strapped towns and school districts, especially when the violators are volunteers who may not be well-versed in the law.

?There is no punishment. There?s nothing but, ?We?ll expect them to do this.? That?s why we have so much trouble with the Right-to-Know Law,? Doherty said.

Rep. Cynthia Dokmo, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill makes it clear that technology cannot be used to evade the spirit of the law.

?If these communications are used to make a decision, they must be disclosed,? said Dokmo, R-Amherst.

Other critics are worried about the updated definition of a meeting.

Judy Meyer, managing editor of the Sun Journal in Lewiston, Maine, was horrified to hear that New Hampshire is even considering allowing meetings by online chat, videoconference or telephone conference call.

The Maine Freedom of Information Coalition, of which Meyer is vice president, is fighting similar proposals in that state ?tooth and nail? because members believe they would discourage public participation, doing away with the kind of spontaneous give-and-take that happens in person.

Cordell Johnston, a lawyer for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, disagreed. He said technology can be used to enhance public, in-person meetings ? for example, by allowing a selectman recovering from surgery to participate from home. Johnston said electronic communications are not intended to replace in-person meetings.

If a board wants to meet electronically, it still must provide notice and a physical location where the public can attend, as well as the equipment necessary for public participation, Johnston said.

The bill does not say that, however, and Meyer expects public officials to take advantage of any loopholes and start meeting in cyberspace. She thinks the law should require that official e-mails be saved for a time and should discourage communication by instant message, phone calls or other means that aren?t easily made public. The bill does not do that, however.

?I just think it makes it more convenient for government at the expense of the public interest,? Meyer said. ?I think the fight has to be right at the beginning.?

Charles Davis, executive director of the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri, is more willing to go with the flow. Technology isn?t going away, so advocates should focus on making sure updates to public access laws are well-written, he said.

?This is the momentum of technology worldwide ? teleconferencing, instant messaging, chat ? this is the way the world is doing business, and it?s the way government is doing business,? he said.

Thomas said requiring storage of all e-mails involving official business is unrealistic, especially in New Hampshire, where the vast majority of people serving on public boards and commissions are volunteers.

?You can?t make it so difficult that you stifle the volunteer spirit,? he said.

[freedombabe]

 

No way.  I'm vlunteering for NOTHING.  Last thing I need is some govt weanie confiscating my computer at home to read all my emails.  Forget it.

[Dreepa]

Part of my town's selectman's meeting was 'closed' my fellow citizens and I were outraged.
I can't wait until next week.

[freedombabe]

Part of my town's selectman's meeting was 'closed' my fellow citizens and I were outraged.
I can't wait until next week.

Ask to see the minutes.

[dawn]

The Selectmen are allowed by RSA to go into closed session for specific reasons. I believe they're contained in the right to know laws (91-A?). They can also vote to seal the minutes to these nonpublic sessions if the board feels there is just cause, also according to RSA. The reasons include things like it will harm the reputation of someone other than the selectmen or that it will hamper legal action. Minutes are not sealed permanently, but can be released when the situation warrants release.

I am 100% in favor of open government. The way the laws are written make it, in my opinion, very difficult to decide what should be open and what shouldn't. There is a fine line. If you say too much in public, and someone gets there nose out of joint, they will sue. So, maybe a big part of the problem is our legal system which perpetuates the sue happy society in which we live.

[Eli]

The Maine coalition believes that electronic media limit give and take?  I guess they've never been on this forum.

[Dreepa]

They call it a personal issue but non of them know the law.
Last week I handed them all a copy of it.
I have been to the selectman's meeting every week.  ( I have to miss it in two weeks too!)

[Russell Kanning]

Part of my town's selectman's meeting was 'closed' my fellow citizens and I were outraged.
I can't wait until next week.

Stay paying town property taxes .... that might shake em up.
Strike-the-Root my friend.