THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Don't Limit Public Right To Know


By Morgan McGinley Published on 5/3/2009

The state bureaucracy and the legislature's Judiciary Committee are up to mischief again, trying to weaken the Freedom of Information law in the name of privacy. State Victim Advocate Michelle Cruz, a former Massachusetts prosecutor, developed the legislation to prevent information considered embarrassing to victims from becoming a matter of public record.

But in her well-meaning yet misguided zeal to give comfort to victims, Ms. Cruz would damage the public's right to information about its government. An amendment now being developed to a bill already cleared by the Judiciary Committee contains an assault on the public's right to know and carries an administrative burden that would disrupt the free flow of information.

The amendment would require any public agency that receives a freedom of information request to inspect or copy “any files,” to raise a privacy objection if the item can be “reasonably determined to be an invasion of personal privacy.” The language in quotations is vague and virtually meaningless unless tested before a court or appropriate commission. The agency would notify the person requesting the information and decline to release any details unless ordered to do so by the state Freedom of Information Commission. So any of thousands of legitimate requests for information might be denied and held up while the FOI Commission tries to fit the matter into its hearing schedule, typically months away.

The first writing of the bill put the matter of defining privacy in the hands of individual victims. That bill was such a twisted proposal that proponents saw trouble from FOI advocates ahead and changed the bill.

This amendment shifts the power to the hands of the public agency officials. This makes more sense than having victims interpret what is public information, but it is harmful for creating a bureaucratic labyrinth of potentially epic proportions.

Thus, matters that previously were public record and deserve to be available might be described by police, prosecutors or others as a matter of privacy rights. And that would then potentially require an FOI Commission hearing on all matter of material that ought not be challenged under normal conditions.

This is bad legislation because it does not provide a balancing act of public benefit versus a right to privacy. Rather, it stipulates a potential challenge to the most legitimate information and forces agency bureaucrats to determine what is an invasion of privacy, something better determined by the courts.

My colleague, Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, says that West Hartford Police Chief James J. Strillacci is concerned because, “We're put in the position of being the arbiter of whether there's an invasion of privacy or not.”

There's a danger, too, because police, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials are predisposed by their own self-interests to keep information secret from the public. Faced with privacy claims handed down by public agency administrators, police reporters could find themselves challenged to appeal, over and over again, to the FOI Commission for the most basic information.

Ms. Cruz apparently does not trust the media and so she is attempting to open virtually a blanket challenge to the release of basic information.

This is a bad omen, for the public's interest sometimes can be different from the intentions and motives of the police or other public officials.

Democracy flourishes when government is open and responsive. Ms. Cruz says the privacy rights of victims are a matter for agency bureaucrats to determine and undercuts the idea that government functions best when the people get the facts and understand what is happening.

Crimes often involve sensitive matters, many of them potentially embarrassing to victims and their families. But free, unfettered media provide the best opportunity for democracy to work well.

The legislature should see this bill for what it is and not entertain the idea of keeping more information from the public.

Morgan McGinley is a former Day editorial page editor, now retired.





R E A D E R'S C O M M E N T S

Posted - 5/3/2009 5:10:39 PM
Morgan, Maybe you should read the comments i sent to you and Collins, I'm not repeating my self... What a commie rag paper this is... The opinion of DJ
To Collins & Morgan
FOI, Wheres mine ?
- 5/4/2009 7:54:04 AM



Posted - 5/3/2009 3:59:17 PM
I just read your column, and your subject is indeed well addressed. The Freedom of Information Law needs wider boundaries, not more examination and/or scrutiny. The latter only leads to clandestine subjective exceptions which would inevitably affect our tacit right to know the facts. We have already been denied enough. I agree. More is the operative word, not less. Thank you Mr. McGinley.
Hanna Cushman
Niantic, Ct. 06357
- 5/3/2009 4:23:50 PM



Posted - 5/3/2009 1:23:39 PM
Good. I hope the legislation passes. Why? Well, news outlets are sensational in irresponsible regarding reporting. YOU take those embarassing things, and print them as truth. You, the media outlet, twist and turn a moment in a persons life that has no bearing in the case at hand, but ia used in a case as a smoke screan and print it as truth..for example.."VICTIM WHO WAS MOLESTED AS A CHILD, IS ROBBED 10 YEARS LATER'...so, when you write that...all people read is that someone was molested as a child..and the criminal is forgoten about. But that, is what you media outlets do. And seriously, what business is it of yours, or anyone elses for that matter. ESPECIALLY when it does not pertain to the matter at hand. The Day has a long standing habit of putting information in the stories that try to make victims look bad. And you hide behind the FOI act to do it, and there is no repurcussions for you..the reporter..only the people you victimize. I REALLY..REALLY hope that this legislation passes...you have no one to blame but yourselves in the media...you should have used information responsibly...but you don't.
EFM
Niantic
- 5/3/2009 4:24:37 PM



Posted - 5/3/2009 11:47:16 AM
on the other hand, educating these financial 'product' marketeers about fairness and full disclosure would help. taking a loan or mortgage should not be so complex that a lawyer is required to unravel all the 'product options' buried in the fine print. when average people are in a position to be exploited by some very clever financial methods, the need for substantial penalties for the lender or bank should act to induce their prudent behavior. it should never be necessary to provide a warning such as 'caveat emptor' for financial contracts themselves. the IRS could take some lessons on simplicity also.
gossip
se conn
- 5/4/2009 8:36:02 AM



Posted - 5/3/2009 9:09:06 AM
Very informative article. With the time frame of haveing a matter heard by the FOI agency now, I can only say leave the present requirements alone. Democracy is having a truly hard time to keep its head above water in these times.
Barbara
East Lyme
- 5/3/2009 10:19:28 AM




POST COMMENT
(Comments will be reviewed by an editor before being posted. Those that include personal insults/attacks, foul language or are otherwise inappropriate or off topic will not be posted. )
Name
Your E-mail Address: (Your e-mail will not be displayed online)
City, State
Message





Access the Day's E-Edition

Today's Print Ads




















commission. The agency would notify the person requesting the information and decline to release any details unless ordered to do so by the state Freedom of Information Commission. So any of thousands of legitimate requests for information might be denied and held up while the FOI Commission tries to fit the matter into its hearing schedule, typically months away.

The first writing of the bill put the matter of defining privacy in the hands of individual victims. That bill was such a twisted proposal that proponents saw trouble from FOI advocates ahead and changed the bill.

This amendment shifts the power to the hands of the public agency officials. This makes more sense than having victims interpret what is public information, but it is harmful for creating a bureaucratic labyrinth of potentially epic proportions.

Thus, matters that previously were public record and deserve to be available might be described by police, prosecutors or others as a matter of privacy rights. And that would then potentially require an FOI Commission hearing on all matter of material that ought not be challenged under normal conditions.

This is bad legislation because it does not provide a balancing act of public benefit versus a right to privacy. Rather, it stipulates a potential challenge to the most legitimate information and forces agency bureaucrats to determine what is an invasion of privacy, something better determined by the courts.

My colleague, Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, says that West Hartford Police Chief James J. Strillacci is concerned because, “We're put in the position of being the arbiter of whether there's an invasion of privacy or not.”

There's a danger, too, because police, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials are predisposed by their own self-interests to keep information secret from the public. Faced with privacy claims handed down by public agency administrators, police reporters could find themselves challenged to appeal, over and over again, to the FOI Commission for the most basic information.

Ms. Cruz apparently does not trust the media and so she is attempting to open virtually a blanket challenge to the release of basic information.

This is a bad omen, for the public's interest sometimes can be different from the intentions and motives of the police or other public officials.

Democracy flourishes when government is open and responsive. Ms. Cruz says the privacy rights of victims are a matter for agency bureaucrats to determine and undercuts the idea that government functions best when the people get the facts and understand what is happening.

Crimes often involve sensitive matters, many of them potentially embarrassing to victims and their families. But free, unfettered media provide the best opportunity for democracy to work well.

The legislature should see this bill for what it is and not entertain the idea of keeping more information from the public.

Morgan McGinley is a former Day editorial page editor, now retired.