[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Records/Archives in the News Part 02 01/18/00
Records/Archives in the News r991215a
There are 3 stories in this posting.
Associated Press 12/15/99
New law bans public access to officers? personal information
Washington Post 12/15/99
Files on retarded out of reach
Boston Globe 12/15/99
Open-records advocates criticize refusal to release judge?s records
_______________________________________________________________
Associated Press 12/15/99
New law bans public access to officers? personal information
by Andrew Welsh-Huggins
<snip>
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A law that takes effect Thursday will ban the public
from receiving personal information about police officers, including their
addresses, phone numbers and the names of their children and other family
members.
Defense attorneys say the law will compromise the ability of lawyers and
others to investigate police misconduct and discrimination cases.
But Mike Taylor, spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, said
the law removes a basic concern expressed by many officers.
?Now law enforcement officers can do their job without the fear that the
person they?re locking up will find out all this personal information and use
it against them or hold it over their head,? said Taylor, the state FOP?s
secretary and a Columbus patrol officer.
The law began life as a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Scott Oelslager,
R-Canton, that would allow people to receive public records of any kind in
Ohio by mail.
State Rep. Jeff Jacobson, R-Brookville, added the ban on releasing police
information.
An exemption allows members of the media to receive officers? names,
addresses and the name and address of any public agency employing the
officer?s spouse, ex-spouse or child.
The law also prohibits jail or prison inmates from receiving most records
regarding a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Fred Gittes, a Columbus lawyer whose firm has successfully investigated
female and black officers? claims of discrimination in the Columbus Police
Department, said the law will hinder investigations.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Taylor said two recent court case support the new law?s intent.
The first involves a February 1998 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in the case of undercover Columbus police officers involved in a drug
investigation of a gang called the Short North Posse.
The court ruled that releasing the records to a defense attorney created ?a
substantial risk of serious bodily harm? to the officers since defendants in
the case apparently received the information.
The second involves an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in April in a case involving
a federal public defender?s attempt to receive the personnel files of a Miami
County sheriff?s detective.
Officers? personal information ?should be protected not only by the
constitutional right of privacy, but, also, we are persuaded that there must
be a ?good sense? rule when such information about a law enforcement officer
is sought by a defendant in a criminal case,? the court said in its ruling.
The Ohio Newspaper Association fought the state FOP for six years over the
police information issue. Following the ?good sense? ruling, the association
reluctantly agreed to the media exemption, realizing Jacobson?s bill would
likely become law, said Frank Deaner, the association?s executive director.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Ann Fenley is a professional genealogist in Dayton whose unsuccessful attempt
to receive death records from the Ohio Historical Society by mail led to the
original bill.
Fenley said on Wednesday that she?s pleased the law addresses the concerns
she raised.
On the other hand, she doesn?t like the ban affecting police information and
prisoners? rights to investigative files.
?It?s typical of what?s happening as far as open records issues go,? she
said. ?It seems that like every time we get a record opened, there has to be
a bunch of other ones to be closed.?
<SNIP>
_______________________________________________________________
Washington Post 12/15/99
Files on retarded out of reach
by Peter Slevin and Katherine Boo
<SNIP>
Sixteen months after advocates for retarded District residents sought access
to D.C. Superior Court files?and four months after an exasperated federal
judge took the rare step of intervening on their behalf?the local court has
not complied.
The records are essential to hundreds of former residents of the District?s
decrepit Forest Haven asylum. In a broken system of care, defenders of the
retarded want to know which of them have attorneys and which do not, which
ones are competently represented and which are not.
Much of the information has always been within reach, in the file rooms of
Superior Court. But gaining access to the records has proved impossible for
advocates and now for a U.S. District judge who wants to resolve a
23-year-old class-action lawsuit.
The duel over the court files illustrates how the fate of the District?s
retarded people often hinges on small details and decisions.
Many months into the dispute, for example, Superior Court clerks told
attorneys that they could retrieve only four files each day, despite the need
to review 760 cases. One Superior Court judge said the effort would cost more
money than the court could afford: $2,675.
At another point, Superior Court Chief Judge Eugene N. Hamilton promised a
response within days. Weeks went by, but Senior U.S. District Judge Stanley
S. Harris said he never heard from Superior Court again.
A recent Washington Post investigation found 350 documented cases of abuse
and 116 unexamined deaths of group home residents in an industry pocked by
corporate fraud and government neglect. The District?s network of homes and
day programs, which spends about $100,000 annually per client, is among the
costliest in the nation.
The dispute over the court files appears emblematic of the way D.C.
authorities have failed the onetime residents of Forest Haven. What Harris
terms the ?unwillingness? of Superior Court to provide essential information
adds a district judge?s voice to the chorus of local and federal players who
have recently criticized the court for poor performance and ineffective
leadership.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Family Court Presiding Judge Zinora Mitchell-Rankin said in an interview
yesterday that Superior Court has been slowed by financial troubles and an
overtaxed staff but is working to fulfill Harris?s demand.
In February, Harris requested a report on the Superior Court advocacy system.
That meant locating the lawyers, who can earn $1,300 or more a year
representing the interests of the retarded.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
When court monitor Lydia Williams contacted the lawyers, she discovered that
many no longer accepted court appointments?some because they were frustrated
with the court?s slow payment habits. Others knew nothing of their clients?
special rights under the federal lawsuit?or even that the class-action case
existed. Only one-third of the wards appeared to have a working attorney.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
When Family Court?s Mitchell-Rankin explained that the court?s files were not
automated, the attorneys volunteered the services of law students. The judge
rebuffed them, citing crowded courthouse work areas and worries that the
volunteers would breach confidentiality rules.
As efforts stalled, Harris interceded.
Mitchell-Rankin stood him up once without explanation, he said. Then she said
it would take 168 hours of overtime to review the 760 files and explained
that Superior Court?which has an annual budget of $121 million?could not
afford the $2,675 cost. Harris, declining to underwrite the expense, said the
volunteer law student idea ?seemed eminently feasible.?
Mitchell-Rankin promised to confer with Chief Judge Hamilton and report back.
She never did. Harris then spoke with Hamilton, who said he was aware of the
issue and would contact Harris within a few days. Hamilton never got back in
touch.
When Forest Haven class-action attorneys sought to review the files one by
one, Superior Court officials denied them access, contending that only the
individual attorneys?whose very names the lawyers were seeking?could review
the material. Harris called the court?s policy ?wholly illogical.?
On Aug. 20, Harris expressed his ?acute disappointment? and ordered Superior
Court to make the files available. He called the history of the dispute
?rather remarkable.?
?To me, this is like a non-issue,? Mitchell-Rankin countered in an interview
yesterday. ?We?ve never been obstreperous. We?ve said from the very beginning
that we?re prepared to provide the information. Hopefully, with one more day
of overtime, we will be completed.?
<SNIP>
_________________________________________________________________
Boston Globe 12/15/99
Open-records advocates criticize refusal to release judge?s records
by Laurie Asseo
Associated Press
<SNIP>
WASHINGTON (AP) A federal judicial committee?s refusal to release financial
records of about 1,600 federal judges and magistrates to a news organization
that wants to put them on the Internet has been criticized by open-records
advocates.
APBnews.com, which sought the reports, said Tuesday it plans to sue to gain
access to them. ??It?s time to take the court to court, and we will do so as
quickly as we can,?? said Mark Sauter, the organization?s chief operating
officer.
Publishing reports on the Internet would not let judges determine whether
releasing the information would create a security risk, the judges? committee
said in a statement released by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.
??Federal judges have unique security concerns,?? said David Sellers,
spokesman for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. ??That?s why last
year Congress provided the Judicial Conference with special authority
regarding the release of their financial disclosure reports. Any action that
threatens, compromises or negates this authority must be taken very
seriously.??
??It?s an absurd result,?? said Gregg Leslie, acting executive director of
the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ??This really is going way
beyond any sort of reasonable protection of safety.??
The judicial panel lifted a two-week-old temporary moratorium on other public
access to the reports filed each year by all federal judges. But the
statement by the Administrative Office implied that any request for
information that mentions a plan to post the reports on the Internet will be
rejected.
However, requesters typically are not required to disclose their
dissemination plans. The reports are routinely made available to any
requesters who identify themselves and disclose their occupation.
??This may be the first time that the government has declared the Internet
off-limits for specific kinds of public documents,?? said Sauter of
APBnews.com, which had paid $2,516 to copy 12,580 pages of documents. ??These
documents contain information that Congress has declared the public has the
right and need to know.??
Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum added, ??I?m very disappointed that the
judges didn?t use the time they had ... to regain their freedom-of-
information footing.?? The reports ??have information about financial
dealings of judges and that shouldn?t pose a physical threat to judges,?? he
said.
<SNIP>
PETER A. KURILECZ CRM, CA
PAKURILECZ@AOL.COM
A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
*or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>