A few random thoughts on Maniaci’s recent open records request to “determine who ratted her out to the press“, in regards to her health-care coverage for alders idea.
1. I may be one of only three or four people in Madison who thinks this way, but I support making Alders eligible for health care coverage. Maybe we only do it until 2014 when all of health care reform kicks in, but Maniaci’s underlying idea is sound. The only argument against it is “we don’t want to spend money on Alders”, which isn’t a very good argument.
2. Demanding to find out who forwarded on the information is tacky, and I’m disappointed that Maniaci felt the need to do so. I can’t imagine it’s winning her much respect from her colleagues, either. A better approach: email the Alders and ask for whoever sent it to Dean to get in touch with her, and if no one answers, move on.
3. Maniaci tells Lueders:
“Why wouldn’t I want to know who is sending something off to the press about policy that hasn’t even been written yet?”
Her proposal became a record the instant she sent it to the other alders, and ready or not, it was open to the public. It’s pretty chilling that an Alder is implying the public dissemination of information was wrong.
4. Irony: Trying to use the open records law in reprisal to the release of an open record.
5. I also want to know who forwarded the information out to the press, and if it wasn’t against city ethics laws, I’d buy them a beer for doing it.
6. Lueders ought to know better, but it is not automatically the case that emails to Mosiman are public records, even if they’re sent from a city email account. Shill v Wisconsin Rapids School Board said that personal emails, even if they’re from a government-sponsored email account, are not open records. Certainly simply emailing Mosiman is not automatically a public record, and I don’t believe that forwarding on an official record automatically makes that forwarding act an official record. If an Alder forwarded on email to Mosiman or another reporter for political purposes as part of a campaign, then clearly it wouldn’t be an open record (though they’d darn well have better used a non-city email account if they did so.)
Van Hollen’s followup memo set the following test: “If there is any aspect of the e-mail that may shed light on governmental functions and responsibilities, the relevant content must be released as any other record would be released under the Public Records Law.” If an Alder included additional commentary on Maniaci’s proposal when they forwarded the email on, then that’s a record. But, forwarding the email on as a personal act doesn’t tell us anything new or that hasn’t already been released about government function or responsibility, and so doesn’t meet Van Hollen’s test.
Without seeing the full email to Moisman we can’t know for sure if this is a record subject to open records laws or if it’s personal in nature, and we’re relying on the record-keeper (the Alder) to make that determination.
7. Going one step further, Wisconsin actually has a pretty decent press-shield law, and no one can force Mosiman to tell who gave him the information. The Whistleblower Protection Act appeals to Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution and clarifies that confidential sources are vital to the Freedom of the Press. Furthermore, it prevents a side-channel attack on the press by not only protecting the press, but also 3rd parties who might be able to indirectly reveal the source. The Legislative Reference Bureau writes that “The Supreme Court has held that the value of the freedom of the press must be balanaced against the societal values favoring disclosure.” Using the Wisconsin Constitution and intent of AB-333, and the conflict between the open records law and preserving the ability of the press to write about these issues, if it was a city record keeper who forwarded the email on to Mosiman, they could decline to comply with Maniaci’s open records request. (That said, it’d keep the lawyers busy if it ever came down to a fight)
8. This is a pretty bad open-records request. What if an Alder forwarded the email to me, and I forwarded it on to Mosiman? Maniaci’s request wouldn’t find that.
9. Why is all email to allalders@cityofmadison.com not automatically put on the web, in real-time? In the 21st century, I shouldn’t have to request a record – it should automatically available to me, on demand over the Internet. That’s transparency. At a minimum, I want the raw data, so we can build better interfaces to the data. For example, Elena Kagen’s email from the Clinton years was released by the National Archives, in raw format, and an enterprising hacker built Elena’s Inbox. Without the raw data from the government, it would never have been able to be built.
10. It’s distressing that important policy discussions are coming out in public only because some Alders or city staff are “leaking” information to the press. We can do better.
Bridget Maniaci is an idiot. The city, as a whole, would have been a LOT better off with Alder Konkel still in office trying to keep Mayor Dave honest instead of Bridget Maniaci trying to kiss Mayor Dave’s incompetent butt.
Houston we’ve got a problem. This alder simply does not get it. Her remarks to Bill Lueders show signs of a social bully.
And in these times where people are struggling to stay afloat; she is EXPLOITIN city worker resources paid by tax payers to find out the wrong question.
If only she would put that time into finding a job with benefits.
She entered this job knowing the parameters. This makes it sound as if she thought she could rail road it through if someone hadn’t spoken.
Her detective work makes it seem as if she wants to bully and expose someone for her mentor who has taught her well, the mayor.
This is so sad for District 2. Once again, words fail me with this woman.
As to Erik’s point 9 (number 9, number 9 …): Interesting idea. I know that if I ever went back to being a journalist, first thing I would do is have a standing Open Records request in to the Mayor and Council offices for all emails relating to various named topics. Can’t believe that nobody has done so to date.
“I don’t believe that forwarding on an official record automatically makes that forwarding act an official record.”
Why not? I think “who” and “when” are important in some situations. Are you suggesting that because no extra information was added that this makes this email communication not fair game as an open record? If there was a paper log of documents copied and who they were given to, wouldn’t that be fair game as an open record?
As you say, there are easy loopholes. Drop a document on the copier, hand it to someone at lunch. No log, no record. Phone calls aren’t generally recorded, either, but we can ask for logs of calls made.