More on the e-mail saga in Missouri..

The Kansas City Star editorial page keeps the heat on:

Gov. Matt Blunt appears to be thumbing his nose at Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The public deserves to know if the law defining certain e-mails as public records has been broken.

Attorney General Jay Nixon should appoint an outside investigator to determine if state records purposely have been destroyed or hidden. The investigator should be politically independent and respected.

The Sunshine Law protects the public’s right to know what government officials are doing.

Meetings, records, votes, actions and deliberations of governmental entities are to be open to the public, unless the law specifies otherwise.

In 2001, Blunt as secretary of state signed a policy that said state agencies must retain “all general communication” for three years.

In 2004, the General Assembly defined electronic communications as public records.

Yet Blunt recently defended his office’s routine destruction of e-mail communications, saying that “nobody saves e-mails for three years.”

Blunt isn’t the only public official who has trouble with the concept of retaining electronic documents. A federal judge this week ordered the White House not to destroy backup computer tapes of its e-mail correspondence. The order results from the disappearance of White House staff e-mails.

In Missouri, the e-mail retention flap started over e-mail correspondence between Ed Martin, Blunt’s chief of staff, and right-to-life groups. When a newspaper columnist asked for other correspondence, Blunt’s staff claimed those e-mails weren’t kept.

The controversy escalated because Blunt aides smeared a former attorney of the governor’s, Scott Eckersley, who had been fired shortly after he advised the staff to save e-mails pertaining to public business.

More here.

In South Dakota, A Proposal for FOI Reform...

A task force is working on a plan to help settle disputes that arise about access to public records in South Dakota.

Here’s the basic idea behind the plan: Have the Office of Hearing Examiners take over responsibility for settling disputes. Anyone who has been turned down in an attempt to see a record in the state can appeal to the OHE, which would determine if the initial denial was right or wrong.

The OHE decision, too, could be appealed in the state court system.

It’s a proposal that has merit, considering the many shades of gray that exist in this state when it comes to open records.

At present, decisions to grant access to records rests at the level of the request. For instance, if a person walks into the local school and asks to see a certain record, the decision likely rests with the business manager or superintendent. Beyond that, some feel there aren’t many places to appeal that decision without the help of a lawyer.

Under the proposal being worked on by the task force, the person who was denied will have options. Even to the media — which is experienced in such situations — this will be an asset. If the proposal becomes law, future disagreements about public record access may have an amicable solution.

But questions remain....

More here.

Info of Farm Bill Federal FOIA Exemption

BARRE, MA - The Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc. (NOFA/Mass) called upon Senators Kerry and Kennedy this week to reject a provision in the 2008 farm bill, which recently passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, that would criminalize disclosure of information from the USDA's new proposed program, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

NAIS is a program proposed by and administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which if fully implemented would require all farmers and livestock owners to individually identify their livestock animals and report each time any one of them is moved from one property to another. USDA says it is implementing the program to contain animal disease outbreaks and reassure foreign meat buyers.

Although there remains no law that specifically authorizes the USDA to implement NAIS, the secrecy provision in the current Senate farm bill would be the first time that the USDA's new program would be explicitly acknowledged in federal statute. The provision, moreover, would impose harsh criminal or civil penalties on members of the public and the press who might publish or in any way disclose information from the NAIS, even if the information had been legally obtained.

"This provision in the Senate's version part the Farm Bill sets a bad precedent," said Jack Kittredge, social action coordinator for NOFA/Mass and owner of Many Hands Organic Farm in Barre. "What it would do is legitimize what the USDA already has been doing by collecting and storing farm data while adding more secrecy. Instead, the Senate should question whether NAIS is a good program to begin with."

The USDA has begun creating a national database containing data on farm premises as the first step toward implementing NAIS. In some states, identification of individual animals has begun, although USDA plans have been slowed by fierce opposition to the program throughout the country.

Since 2006, hundreds of Massachusetts farmers and livestock owners around the state have attended public meetings to express their concerns that NAIS would place unnecessary burdens on their farm operations. As a result, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture stopped its practice of uploading livestock premises data to the USDA. Moreover, fourteen state representatives and three senators have co-sponsored bills to end the state's participation in the national program.

Since NAIS was first proposed, many agribusiness spokespersons have expressed concerns over how the program might compromise confidentiality of data about their production operations. Ben Grosscup of NOFA/Mass commented, "The best way to protect farmer's data is not to shut out the public. The best answer in this case happens to be the simplest: just don't collect the information in the first place."

"The same agribusiness firms that first wanted NAIS in order to calm the safety concerns of foreign buyers are now trying to undo the one part of NAIS that they don't like" said Grosscup. "Since NAIS creates a huge database to track all animal agriculture activities, these companies want special secrecy assurances in the law to stop watch dog groups and the public at large from revealing what they're doing inside their factory farms. But more secrecy will just conceal the diseases these operations produce. The Senate bill's secrecy provision satisfies those companies that are willing to submit to government surveillance of their production sites, because they aren't required to change their unsustainable enterprises. This top-down approach to disease control most hurts the very producers whose sustainable methods make them upstanding guardians of the public health."

Kittredge added that there are simpler and more effective ways to deal with the disease threats that NAIS is supposed to address. "These threats are a product of bad management. Raising animals in dense indoor conditions, out of the cleansing presence of sun and air and soil, provides a breeding ground for pathogens. Feeding grain to grass-eaters and animal parts to herbivores may create fast growth and cheap meat, but it is unnatural and results in sickness and disease. We need to support healthy animal production on pasture, outdoors on small farms. If we want to eat meat, we need to raise animals in a clean and sustainable fashion."

NOFA/Mass promotes farming and gardening with ecosystem-friendly practices to foster health, local agriculture, open space, and food security in Massachusetts. The group has also sponsored numerous public informational forums on NAIS, genetic engineering, and local and organic food throughout the state as well major annual Winter and Summer conferences. Information on the group's activities is available at: www.nofamass.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------

NOFA/Mass recently signed on to a coalition letter that has been signed onto by 28 groups from around the country that are advocating for great accountability and openness in government: http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/farm_bill_letter.pdf

For further news about the NAIS secrecy provision in the Farm Bill:

Concerns About Disclosure in Farm Bill
By MARY CLARE JALONICK Associated Press Writer
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2007/11/08/D8SPOMNO1_congress_farm_bill/index.html

For the latest info on efforts in Massachusetts to stop NAIS see:
http://pressroom.nofamass.org/taxonomy/term/66

New Fed FOIA database...

Now THIS is a great idea...Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and a coalition of other Washington watchdogs have unveiled a new database of FOIA documents that citizens can access.

Why deal with the government middlemen?

There is lots of “good stuff ” on the database already: Hurricane Katrina; global warming; Neil Bush; Jack Abramoff; secret service records.

The documents were obtained by CREW, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation -- all NFOIC allies.

A town government, a Wal-Mart and a land deal...

An entity that receives 90 percent of its funding from the public, is housed in a public building and conducts business that affects the community should be subject to the open meetings and public records law, an assistant attorney general told the Wisconsin Supreme Court today.

In a case involving the Beaver Dam Area Development Corp. and its secret negotiations to woo a Wal-Mart distribution center, Assistant Attorney General Monica Burket Brist disputed the quasi-governmental corporation's claim that it was a private entity and didn't have to tell the public when it meets or why.

"If all the negotiating is paid by the taxpayers, then public oversight ought to be given some weight, " she said.

Burket Brist added that the law would still allow these semi-public corporations to engage in confidential negotiations with firms, but that they are not exempt from the state's open records laws.

Michael Cieslewicz, attorney for the Beaver Dam Area Development Corp., or BDADC, said firms interested in relocating to a community would be less candid in discussing business plans with a development corporation if they knew documents they submitted could be part of an open records request once the discussions concluded.

"Not all negotiations result in an agreement, and if those discussions fall through then the records could be disclosed to their competition," Cieslewicz said.

Cieslewicz said that decisions on whether a quasi-governmental agency is subject to open meetings law should be made on a case-by-case basis. Two key factors in that decision should be whether the corporation has the power to bind the city to do anything and who has day-to-day control over the corporation's functions. The BDADC's voting directors are private citizens and don't have the power to bind the city, Cieslewicz said.

More here.

Wisconsin Bill Slowed...Thankfully...

A bill read in the state Assembly Tuesday that could significantly alter the Wisconsin Public Records Law was stalled because of severe opposition from media groups.

The bill, AB522, was scheduled for a vote in the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee, but because of resistance from media groups at the public hearing over the bill’s vague wording, the bill is being revised, according to committee member Rep. Robert Turner, D-Racine.

“At this point this bill is not on a fast track,” said Eric Hanson, a spokesperson for committee member state Rep. Tony Staskunas, D-West Allis.

The existing law authorizes Wisconsin residents to inspect or obtain records maintained by the government.

Andrew Nowlan, spokesperson for state Rep. Garey Bies, R-Sister Bay, the bill’s author, said the bill does not affect what documents are available to the public.

According to Nowlan, an information technology department handling record keeping for different police departments should not decide whether or not to release the record. He said this is an example of the open records law needing more precise protocols.

Nowlan said only the police departments that conducted the investigation, courts and other “proper custodians” should be able to release the information.

More here.

Medical Study Fueled by FOI...

More than 500 lives a year can be saved annually in the United States and Canada through the widespread placement of defibrillators, finds a new study that emerged out of real-life, emergency situations.

Portable defibrillators can quickly treat a sudden heart attack by analyzing a person's heart rhythm and delivering an electrical shock if needed to get the heart pumping again.

"Good Samaritans, when given access to automated defibrillators in potentially fatal emergencies, save lives," Dr. Myron Weisfeldt, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

The study, conducted in 11 cities in the United States and Canada was presented at the American Heart Association meeting in Orlando, Fla. It involved an analysis of patient records from more than 10,600 incidents of cardiac arrest that were attended to by EMS (emergency medical services) workers.

Bystanders administered CPR in nearly 30 per cent of the cases and offered CPR as well as an automated defibrillator in 2.4 per cent of the cases.

Though only 259 patients had an automated external defibrillator applied by a bystander, their survival was very good. Of patients who had a bystander perform only CPR on them, just 9 per cent survived long enough to be treated and later discharged from hospital. When bystanders provided CPR and used a defibrillator to deliver a shock, survival increased to 36 per cent -- approximately four times that of CPR alone.

More here.

Wisconsin Court Orders Records Released...

Police in Milwaukee must release reports detailing why a man was taken into emergency custody, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Milwaukee attorney Michael Watton had asked police for all records concerning Sidney Kente Gray. Watton wants the records to bolster a federal lawsuit that alleges city and county officials wrongly released Gray from treatment a day before he killed a man.

Police Chief Nanette Hegerty withheld reports detailing why officers took Gray to a mental health facility in the month before the slaying. She said she didn't want to violate Gray's privacy.

But the First District Court of Appeals ruled Gray's mental state already was public knowledge.

"Watton is damaged by MPD's failure to disclose public information in the same manner that any member of the public, or of the media, is damaged when the policy of open records is improperly thwarted," the appeals court said in its ruling.

More here.

Ohio Supremes Protect Privacy of Drunk Drivers...All of 'Em.

The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected a newspaper's effort to get the names of all Ohioans convicted of drunken driving.

The court, without comment, voted 7-0 on Oct. 24 to dismiss a lawsuit filed by The Cincinnati Enquirer.

The state contended that the identities were protected by state and federal privacy laws.

The lawsuit followed a newspaper analysis in which the Enquirer reported finding nearly 36,000 drivers with five or more drunken-driving convictions in Ohio.

But state officials refused to provide access to the names in a database of records dating to 1973. Ohio Department of Public Safety Director Henry Guzman filed a motion to dismiss the newspaper's lawsuit, and the court agreed.

Jack Greiner, a Cincinnati attorney representing the Enquirer, called it disappointing that the Supreme Court dismissed the case without oral arguments or full legal briefs.

The Enquirer reported Oct. 24 that "the case raised a novel question concerning the interplay between federal law and the Ohio Open Records Act." The newspaper quoted Greiner as saying, “It is hard to imagine that Congress intended for the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act to shield the identity of repeat DUI offenders. But that is the effect of today’s ruling.”

Assistant Attorney General William J. Cole, representing Guzman, said that the Enquirer could request driver information from each of Ohio’s 88 counties individually, the newspaper reported. The Enquirer has said such a project would take too long to be feasible.

More here.

Lots of FOIA Logs Online for Perusing...

Ever wonder who is requesting stuff through FOIA at federal agencies? Government Attic is starting to post a bunch of FOIA logs, and it makes for some interesting reading...

Check it out.

Can You Take Digital Pics of Public Records Instead of Copying?

Ah, the creative folks over at the New Times in Phoenix have created a bit of a row, when a reporter started snapping digital images of public records...

More here. It's a bit bizarre, in a fun way...

San Diego Media Appeal FOI Case

Three news organizations, including The San Diego Union-Tribune, have appealed a judge's decision barring Vista officials from making public the identities of employers registered under the city's day-laborer law.
The litigation was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the city in July to block the release of the names of the employers to an anti-illegal-immigration group based in North County. In June, the group filed a request for the list under the state's public-records law.

Vista began requiring in July 2006 that anyone hiring day laborers off the street register with the city. The list of employers had been released to the Vista Citizens Brigade, an offshoot of the Minuteman Project, and others until the ACLU sued.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Michael Orfield ordered the city not to release the list. He ruled that the employers' right to privacy trumped the public's right to know their identities under the California Public Records Act.

More here.

Pennsylvania Bill Nearly Ready...But A Long Way From What It Was...

In a marathon session, the Pennsylvania House has put the finishing touches on an open records bill.

The debate over nearly 13 hours disposed of nearly 100 amendments. Democrats successfully fought back Republican-led attempts to delay consideration of the freedom-of-information bill. A final House vote is expected in mid-November.

The bill now barely resembles what was introduced early this year by freshman Representative Tim Mahoney, a Fayette County Democrat. But it does have what's known as the "flip of presumption." That means if it becomes law government records will be presumed open to public inspection unless there's a specific reason for secrecy.

Coverage here.

Those e-mails? The ones about you? Can't have 'em. But we'll send the to reporters...

When an attorney fired by Gov. Matt Blunt tried to get records from the governor’s office about his termination, he was told those documents were closed for personnel reasons.

The refusal to provide the records came the same day Blunt’s office released hundreds of pages of e-mails and documents to reporters that included intimate personal details about Scott Eckersley, the administration lawyer who was fired Sept. 28.

In a letter to reporters the day the documents were released, administration officials insinuated Eckersley may have liked “group sex” and illegal drugs.

Eckersley, the former deputy chief counsel for Blunt’s office, has said he was fired after challenging the administration’s position that it did not have to save e-mails and could routinely delete them. He said he is now the victim of character assassination in retaliation for speaking out.

At a news conference in Springfield on Tuesday, Blunt denied Eckersley’s claim and said the firing had been “handled appropriately.” He said that Eckersley was fired for working for another company on state time.

More here.

Want A Job Fighting Secrecy?

JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Oct. 30, 2007

PROGRAM ASSISTANT or ASSOCIATE

OpenTheGovernment.org is searching for either a Program Assistant or an Associate to help run a coalition addressing government transparency issues.

OpenTheGovernment.org is a coalition of consumer and good government groups, environmentalists, library groups, journalists, labor and others united to make the federal government a more open place in order to make us safer, strengthen public trust in government, and support our democratic principles. It was founded in 2003 as a result of increased government secrecy. OpenTheGovernment.org has a small two-person staff serving a steering committee of 15 people representing members of coalition. The coalition operates with assistance of coalition members and paid consultants.

The coalition’s goals are to:
• Broaden the base of national, state and local organizations active on right to know and anti-secrecy issues. The current constituency base of nonprofit organizations, media allies, prominent citizens and others willing to respond to crises and advocate for the right to know is inadequate to meet today=s trend against openness.
• Advance right-to-know at the federal and state levels through legislative and other vehicles. These vehicles may be useful as a tool or set of tools to organize around or as policy objectives in and of themselves.
• Better publicize secrecy efforts through the media using messages that resonate with the public and are framed in a way that is supportive of improving hometown safety.

OpenTheGovernment.org is searching for the best fit for its small office. Depending upon a candidate’s qualifications, s/he may be considered for either the position of Associate or Program Assistant. The coalition has two full-time staff located in Washington, D.C. One position is available and will report to the Director. The Associate would have greater responsibility for developing and carrying out policy positions, including lobbying, and for coalition-building and strengthening activities.

The position involves working with the Director to

• Involve interested parties (organizations and individuals) in openness and anti-secrecy activities;
• Coordinate and participate in meetings with Congressional offices;
• Coordinate coalition work on issues related to openness and secrecy;
• Represent organization at coalition meetings, and cultivate relationships with coalition partners;
• Research, track, and analyze legislation on government openness and secrecy, and co-author the annual Secrecy Report Card, a report that uses quantifiable measures to examine the growth of government secrecy;
• Plan and organize annual national teleconference during "Sunshine Week," and work with experts to engage online audiences with games and flash animation; and
• Identify potential funders, write proposals, organize funders’ briefings and report on existing grants.

Other responsibilities include

• Assisting in creating action alerts and frequently updating the coalition's website;
• Producing a bi-weekly e-newsletter sent to more than sixty-five partner organizations and over 2,000 individual subscribers; and
• Managing membership database, answering the phone, and performing other tasks when needed.

Qualifications for Program Assistant
• Applicants should have a demonstrated interest in issues of government openness and accountability
• One year advocacy experience, including policy analysis and research, strongly preferred
• Bachelor’s Degree in political science or related field
• Excellent oral and written communications skills
• High level of initiative and ability to work independently in a fast paced, changing environment
• Skills in using online technologies creatively a plus
• Experience working with coalitions a plus

Qualifications for Associate
• Applicants must have a demonstrated interest in issues of government openness and accountability
• 3-5 years advocacy experience, including advocacy-oriented policy analysis and research, required
• Bachelor’s Degree in political science or related field
• Experience working with coalitions strongly preferred
• Excellent oral and written communications skills
• High level of initiative and ability to work independently in a fast paced, changing environment
• Skills in using online technologies creatively a plus
• Experience with fundraising a plus

The salary range for the Program Assistant is $27,000 to $31,000. The salary for the Associate position would be based on experience. Benefits include employer-paid health and dental coverage and retirement plan.

How to Apply

This position is open immediately. Please indicate if you only want to be considered for one of these positions. OpenTheGovernment.org is an equal opportunity employer, and encourages minorities and women to apply.
Send cover letter, resume and salary requirements by email (with the words “Associate” or “Program Assistant” in the subject line) to pmcdermott@openthegovernment.org, or mail/fax to:

OpenTheGovernment.org
Associate or Program Assistant Search
1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 3rd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Fax: 202 234 8494

Website: www.openthegovernment.org

Key Ruling in Dallas E-Mail DIspute...

E-mail continues to create FOI issues across the country, and this ruling in Dallas sends a strong signal...

State District Judge Gena Slaughter has ruled that the city of Dallas must release e-mails requested more than 22 months ago by The Dallas Morning News, including messages from city officials' personal accounts or hand-held devices used to conduct city business.

In late 2005, two News reporters submitted separate Texas Public Information Act requests for access to e-mails from several Dallas officials, including City Manager Mary Suhm, former Mayor Laura Miller and housing director Jerry Killingsworth.

The News filed the lawsuit in July 2006 after exhausting other efforts to obtain the information, said David Starr, vice president and deputy general counsel of Belo Corp. Belo is the parent company of The News.

More here.

Upping the Ante in Georgia

From the Associated Press:

A Georgia lawmaker says she wants to make it a felony to deliberately violate the state's Open Records Act.

State Rep. Jill Chambers, R-Atlanta, said she plans to introduce a bill to make the law easier to understand and possibly eliminate some exemptions.

Chambers said she would make "willfully and knowingly violating" the Open Records Act a felony, with a fine of up to $5,000. Under current law violations are a misdemeanor, subject to a $100 fine.

The law requires public officials to allow citizens to view and photocopy most government documents. Exceptions include medical or veterinary records, confidential police and prosecution investigative files, individuals' Social Security numbers, and others.

Chambers said she believes the law is confusingly written and that many violations result from misunderstanding it.

"Just trying to read it and understand it would be a major accomplishment," she said. "It's so hard to find what you need in the law, and then once you do find it, it's so hard to understand.

"There will always be people who flagrantly violate the Open Records Act. But there are also people who violate it because they don't understand it."

Hollie G. Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, said there is "room for improvement" in the Open Records Act, but her main concern is not that the law confusingly written.

More here.

Another Day, Another Secret Hold in Congress...

I'm not sure what, exactly, it is about secret holds that so offends me....oh yeah! It's the SECRECY, and the lack of accountability, and the breathtaking arrogance....

Great story on a new hold....

A Kentucky senator is blocking legislation that would overturn President Bush's 2001 executive order giving presidents and former presidents more power to halt indefinitely the release of their White House records.

While Republican Sen. Jim Bunning acknowledges using a parliamentary maneuver known as a "secret hold" to stall the measure, he has not made it clear why he opposes bipartisan legislation praised by some scholars for providing access to the inner workings of presidential administrations.

Bush has promised to veto the measure if the Senate passes it because it would "improperly impinge on the president's constitutional authority."

The House cleared the same bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., by a wide, veto-proof margin last April. Open government groups are pressing the Senate to follow suit, hoping to override a veto.

Bunning's hold on the bill comes as the White House faces a possible temporary restraining order to bar its administrative office from destroying back-up copies of some 5 million missing e-mails documenting the inner thinking of top presidential aides. Federal law dictates that the e-mails be preserved as part of the public record.

"It's all part of the same continuum: a complete lack of respect for the public and the public's right to know what this president did and why," said Anne L. Weismann, chief counsel for the watchdog group Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Wow. Read on and you'll be quivering with outrage, unless you are a fan of the secret presidency...

Take FOI for Granted?

Not after you read this heroic tale:

THE men who attacked Ivan Y. Pavlov waited beside his car outside his home.

They knocked him over from behind, stomped him and kicked him in the head. None of them spoke. They stole nothing. As Mr. Pavlov lay curled defensively on the street, they trotted away. Then they tried to run him over with their car.

Mr. Pavlov rolled clear, he said. The car sped off. “It was my good luck that there were four of them,” he said recently, recalling the attack in 2006 with a mix of drollness and lawyerly precision. “They were pushing each other out of the way to kick me and got in each other’s way.”

Mr. Pavlov was hospitalized for a week. The police later told him the attack appeared to be related to his work — a mission to pry open stores of government information that he says are essential to Russian public life and that by law should be in the public domain, but are kept from view by corruption and apathy.

The battle for personal and political freedom in Russia is often framed as a contest between the Kremlin and its critics over the rights of assembly, speech and suffrage, and for an independent judiciary, legislature and media.

Mr. Pavlov leads a quieter but still dangerous campaign: legal battles for what he calls, simply, “the right to know.”

As the director of the Institute for Information Freedom Development, a private organization he founded in 2004, he strives to teach government agencies that stores of information in their possession — manufacturing and sanitary standards, court records, licenses, fire codes, public tenders, administrative decrees, agency phone directories, registries of public and private organizations — should be made available for all to view.

HIS work is necessary, he and his supporters say, because much of the basic information of governance in Russia has never been made public, even after the Constitution codified the public’s right to nonsecret information in 1993.

My favorite quote:

“Nobody defended the basic right — the right to know, to have access to information,” he said. “People cannot have their freedom, and realize all their other rights, without this right.”

More here.

In Ohio, FOI panel eyes e-mail...

State and local government officials should no longer be allowed to skirt Ohio public-records laws by using private e-mail accounts to conduct official government business.

That is the view of a 22-member committee created by the legislature to examine public-records issues. The panel approved its final recommendations yesterday, including one that says electronic communication "in the course of public business should be treated consistently under existing public records laws and court decisions."

"We want to make sure nobody is gaming the process by doing public work on private devices," said Sen. David Goodman, R-New Albany, a co-chairman of the Privacy/Public Records Access Study Committee.

"It's a very sensitive area because technology is changing every day. But the general idea is if you're doing public work, it's a public record no matter what device you use."

More here...