First let me say that yes I do want this. In some ways it will help shed some light or certainly make it easier to find info. That is always good. My reservations are simply this. Will it eliminate the problems we now have? I am not sure it will.
Take the CAFR and finance debacle we are still waiting for info for. Would an online database answer the questions of where is the money? Not if Abramson does not want to disclose it. Remember the database is only as good as the info input into it. In short by the current CAFR availability through 2007 we know that there has been a surplus each year yet Abramson continues to act like we haven't and has tied up this year's CAFR so we cannot see the real results.
The databse will not answer that question unless we also have language and laws governing disclosure.
In the meantime I love the quote by Jim King about how this could actually save money by perhaps being cheaper than open records request. Of course King has no love lost for me based on my recent open records request. In fact I am not sure how this would alleviate much in the way of open records request.
An online database does not give you relevant info based on public record such as email for example.
Of course in the case of Jim King, and I am sure others as well, public email can be bypassed if you really do not want the public to see what you are doing with government business. How so you may ask?
Simple, instruct whoever you are dealing with to reply to your personal private email address so the public cannot access the conversation. King does this all the time.He starts a convo alluding to public business then instructs the responder to reply to his corporate email address rather than his public louisvilleky.gov email address.
Why? So the conversation then can be a private one the public does not see. Even when it regards City business.
Of course some will say I am making things up and this does not happen. I beg to differ. Look at the following email from King to Bruce Traughber brought about by an open records request:
This is just one example of a conversation concerning public business that apparently King decided we probably did not need to know about so he instructed none other than Bruce Traughber to reply to his personal email account at King corporate group.
Does anyone besides me now see the problem? This certainly circumvents the purpose of the open records laws and does nothing to insure us that we can expect transparency from our elected leadership.
King knowingly has violated the intent of the law and I for one believe he should be held accountable. How many things that concern us are bypassed this way?
The open records laws will continue to be necessary no matter how it is spun. This is yet one example of why we need them.
Of course now that this is exposed I would expect that there will not be much info available anymore.
Perhaps the open records laws should be expanded to include personal private email access from elected officials and their aides in regards to public business. That would go a long way to insuring transparency would it not?
Hold them accountable do not allow ourselves to be pawns in their game.
We need transparency now. The online database is a good start but we need to insure that if it becomes reality we have laws in place to insure the intent is realized.
I'm not sure that it DOES circumvent it. Nothing in the Open Records act requires that these records be held on government property, for example. A request for the information held on his company email mail related to a specific subject, for example, denied, might trigger an interesting dilemma for the Attorney General to deal with ....
ReplyDeleteI just sent an e-mail to Councilman Heiner requesting that auditability of the online database's information be a part of the legislation. The database won't be any good if we can't trust what we're reading because of any undue influence from this mayor or anyone trying to protect him.
ReplyDelete