|
|
|
The FOI ADVOCATESeptember 6, 2006 Vol. 5, No. 1The E-Newsletter of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, a unit of the Missouri School of Journalism "A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty." -- 110 Congressional Record 17, 087 (1964) (Statement of Senator Long) NFOIC NEWS
SEND US YOUR STATE’S NEWS at daviscn@missouri.edu. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928 (Articles link to external sites) TOP OF THE NEWS"Suppression of information is the surest way to cause its significance to grow and persist," the judge opined. "Clarity and openness are the best antidotes, either to dispel criticism if not merited or, if merited, to correct such errors as may be found." -- Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in Federal District Court in Manhattan, ordering the Pentagon and other agencies to release another series of documents and videos on the detentions at Abu Ghraib prison. SECRET HOLD ON FOI BILL: In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver. An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search. SECRECY GROWS EVER MORE EXPENSIVE: The U.S. government spent more than $9.2 billion last year keeping things secret. That represents a 13 percent rise over the previous year, and the soaring expense fell disproportionately on the private sector, where the costs to government contractors and other companies of meeting government-mandated security standards nearly doubled. The figures are contained in the 2005 annual cost estimate from the Information Security Oversight Office, the government agency that oversees the national security classification system. It includes the direct costs of deciding which information should be classified, and all the associated expenditure -- the system of personnel clearances, office security systems, special computer networks and other facilities -- incurred by both the government and industry. In 2004, the total estimate was $8 billion, but of that just $823 million was incurred by the private sector. Those costs nearly doubled in 2005 to $1.6 billion, whereas government costs over the same period rose from about $7.2 billion to roughly $7.7 billion. The figures were first reported by government transparency advocate Steven Aftergood, who runs the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. BEAT THE RUSH—GET YOUR SUNSHINE WEEK T-SHIRT NOW! Sunshine Week 2007, the third annual national initiative for open government, is coming March 11-17, and for the first time, it will feature available merchandise. The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), which leads the initiative supported by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, announced Thursday that Sunshine Week logo swag is available for purchase online. T-shirts for adults and children, caps, coffee mugs, tote bags and more can be bought at www.cafepress.com/sunshineweek. All proceeds will go directly to Sunshine Week programs, ASNE said. As in past years, newspapers nationwide are being asked to publish articles, editorials, cartoons and other material about open government issues and protecting public access to public information. This year's initiative will again include participation non-profit organizations, schools, civic groups and libraries, ASNE said. "We're going into our third year of Sunshine Week, and the concept just continues to build momentum," said ASNE President David A. Zeeck, executive editor of The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash. "We've built even stronger relationships with our existing partners, and we're continually finding new groups and individuals who want to join the fight against unwarranted government secrecy at all levels. The Sunshine Week Web site will continue to host examples from March 2006 in the frequently updated "Shining Examples" gallery. ANTITERROR, IRAQ, ETC.“The danger to political dissent is acute where the government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.” -- The ACLU quoting a 1972 United States Supreme Court opinion in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,407 U.S. 297 (1972), which re-emerged in the news recently after Justice Department lawyers blacked it out in filings in a Patriot Act case. For the evidence, see a portion of the ACLU's court filing after the Justice Dept was allowed to censor it. GITMO GUARDS FACE FREQUENT ATTACKS: The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay during the war on terror have attacked their military guards hundreds of times, turning broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons. Pentagon incident reports reviewed by The Associated Press show Military Police guards are routinely head-butted, spat upon and doused by "cocktails" of feces, urine, vomit and sperm collected in meal cups by the prisoners. They've been repeatedly grabbed, punched or assaulted by prisoners who reach through the small "bean holes" used to deliver food and blankets through cell doors, the reports say. Serious assaults requiring medical attention, however, are rare, the reports indicate. The detainee "reached under the face mask of an IRF (Initial Reaction Force) team member's helmet and scratched his face, attempting to gouge his eyes," states a May 27, 2005, report on an effort to remove a recalcitrant prisoner from his cell. ACLU SEEKS INFO ON GHOST DETAINEES: Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Amnesty International and the International Human Rights Clinic of New York University School of Law jointly submitted requests to various federal departments for records concerning "disappeared" detainees including "ghost" and unregistered prisoners. These detainees are individuals who are -- or have been -- held by, or with the involvement of the United States government, where there is no public record of the detentions. Such individuals have also often been subjected to the practice commonly known as extraordinary rendition. "Despite the evidence of secret sites and unlawful rendition of suspects that Amnesty International, other NGOs and the media have uncovered, the United States government has 'so far' declined to discuss that such a program exists," said Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director for Amnesty International USA. "In addition, they decline to discuss secret detention and the existence of 'black sites.' How many more former detainees' testimonials, breaking stories and U.N. condemnations will it take for the United States to end its worst practices and abide by the rule of law?" The FOIA requests were filed earlier this year to the U.S. Departments of Justice, Defense, State, Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency. Several responses have been received, but they have provided very little information. GENERAL FOIA NEWSFOI AT WORK: Fort Campbell last year kicked out 49 soldiers under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays, putting the Kentucky post second on the list for most discharges. That number grew from 19 in 2004 and represented the single biggest increase in discharges anywhere, according to Defense Department documents shared with The Associated Press by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "The numbers at Fort Campbell remain disturbing because of the history there," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "The discharge numbers had gone significantly down. This seems to be a rebound. It's not clear why." It was at Fort Campbell that Pfc. Barry Winchell was bludgeoned to death in 1999 by a fellow soldier who believed Winchell was gay. Gay discharges from the post went up sharply on the heels of that murder, but later subsided. A post spokeswoman declined to comment on the statistics. An Army post in Missouri used the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to kick out more soldiers than any other military installation last year, followed by Fort Campbell and a Navy base in Virginia. Sixty people were dismissed last year from Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. That was up from 40 discharges under the policy from the training facility in 2004. EARMARKS 101: The Sunlight Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based organization seeking transparency in government, has made tracing House members' discretionary spending easier. Its "Exposing Earmarks" project, begun last week, includes a map pinpointing locales where the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education plan to spend some $495,435,100. The Web site also features a downloadable spreadsheet, enabling citizens and journalists to analyze how tax money is being spent. The Sunlight Foundation suggests calling representatives for explanations before deciding whether the spending is bacon or pork. AP SEEKS USAID FUNDING IN VENEZUELA: The Associated Press filed a request under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act last year seeking documents from the U.S. Agency for International Development detailing its funding of non-governmental organizations in Venezuela. The AP sought USAID contracts for grants to groups in Venezuela since January 2004. About nine months after the AP's request, USAID released 132 grant contracts, totaling some 1,600 pages, for 2004 and 2005. However, the agency withheld the names of nearly half the recipient groups and any individuals working for them. Whiting out their names, the agency cited an exemption to the FOIA law that prevents the release of information that would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The agency said identifying recipients could subject them to intimidation or legal action by Venezuelan authorities. The AP has appealed under the FOIA law, arguing that the exemption cited by USAID protects only certain individual privacy rights and is not meant to prevent the public from knowing which organizations are receiving U.S. funds. IN THE STATES“It's not the public's meeting. It's the school board's meeting." -- Hampshire County, W.Va. School board attorney Norwood Bentley From the First Amendment Center FOI AT WORK: FAITH-BASED LENDING? Middletown leaders loaned almost $60,000 interest-free to three Christian churches under loosely worded agreements that allow the religious groups to pay back the money at their discretion.The News Journal discovered the agreements today through a Freedom of Information Act request. Documents reveal the town loaned Dale’s Memorial United Methodist Church $36,477.17 on Dec. 31, 1999. The money, to be paid back within 15 years, was to reimburse the town for “substantial improvements” Middletown made to 210 Catherine St. and 138-140 Lake St. Upon repayment of the loan, the town will turn over deeds to the properties to the church. The agreement, which was signed by Mayor Ken Branner Jr., says the church may pay off the sum “without interest, at any time within 15 years from the date hereof, any and all payments to be made at the discretion, and in the amount determined by Dale’s.” The second agreement is a Feb. 26, 2003 loan to Mt. Calvary Baptist Church for $21,000. This, too, is for improvements the town made to the church’s 300 New St. property. It is to be repaid within 14 years. The most recent is a $1,900 loan to Rehoboth Church at 209 E. Lake St. for its new roof. That money is to be repaid within two years. Read more about it. FLORIDA FOI CENTER RECEIVES GIFT: Marion Brechner recently gave $100,000 to the University of Florida to help sustain the vision of her late husband Joseph, who fought for freedom of information as an Orlando TV executive. “Joe is the reason I’m here,” she said during a recent visit to the UF College of Journalism and Communications. The college’s Joseph L. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information and the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project will receive $50,000 each to hold a 30th anniversary celebration and set up a research service to help respond to legislation that would close access to public records and meetings, respectively. Read more about it. ARIZONA COURT SAYS PRIVATE E-MAILS ON PUBLIC COMPUTERS ARE PRIVATE: Private e-mail messages written by government employees and sent from publicly owned computers are not subject to Arizona's public disclosure laws, the state Court of Appeals in Tucson said in a decision that Phoenix Newspapers Inc. plans to appeal to the state's highest court. "If left standing, this decision would seriously undercut the public's ability to keep tabs on public officials and [on] public resources," said David Bodney, attorney for The Arizona Republic. "It allows a public official to pronounce his own e-mail as purely personal and therefore beyond public review." A three-judge panel, relying on a previous decision by the Arizona Supreme Court, ruled Aug. 4 that in order for an e-mail message to be deemed public, it must not only be created by a government employee on a government computer, but it "must also have some relation the official duties of the public officer that holds the record." "We see no such relation between [the employee's] purely personal e-mails and his official duties," Chief Judge John Pelander wrote for the panel, reversing a trial judge's earlier ruling ordering the release of all the public employee's e-mail messages. The Republic sought all e-mail messages sent and received by Pinal County Manager Stan Griffis in his last 60 days in office, from Oct. 1 to Dec. 2, 2005, in an investigation of Griffis' alleged spending on $21,000 worth of sniper rifles and related materials, and a subsequent African safari, Bodney said. Griffis challenged disclosure of 120 of his e-mail messages as "'documents of a personal nature,' including 'communications regarding a personal vacation and . . . purchases from online retailers,'" according to the court's opinion. In agreeing with Griffis, Judge Pelander wrote that the "content of the e-mails . . . is merely a record of Griffis's personal affairs and falls outside the scope of information necessary for the public to have knowledge of 'the manner in which he conducts his office and performs his duty.'" Read more about it. THIRD CIRCUIT STRIKES DOWN RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a section of Delaware's Freedom of Information Act is unconstitutional because it limits access to public records only to state residents. The precedent-setting ruling upholds an earlier, lower court ruling by District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. "We are pleased and we hope Delaware will finally see the light and change the law and permit non-Delaware citizens to have access to state records," said attorney David C. Vladeck, who argued against the state law. Officials with the Delaware Attorney General's office did not immediately comment. The lawsuit was filed against the state in 2003 by Matthew Lee, a resident of New York, who is a journalist and consumer advocate, after he was denied access to Delaware records involving a national bank. Read more about it. HAS HE EVER HEARD OF REDACTION? Southern Illinois University President Glenn Poshard has defended the university's decision to withhold copies of employment contracts in the wake of a lawsuit filed by two Southern Illinois newspapers. Poshard said while salary and benefits of university officials are public record, other information contained in employment contracts could be protected under state privacy laws. "Contracts include a lot more than just salary and benefits," Poshard said. "In contracts, with public employees, sometimes the university requires other things." Poshard's contract with the university, for example, includes a provision that requires him to periodically provide statements from his cardiologist stating he is "physically able to carry out the job." "When the board appointed me, I told people I have a heart condition, and I didn't try to hide that at all," he said. "It's one thing for me to do that on my own, but there are privacy issues with the university releasing such information about employees to the public. Privacy laws cover a lot of things." Read more about it. APPEALS COURT SAYS ARENA GROUP ‘FUNCTIONAL EQIVALENT’ OF GOVERNMENT: A Tennessee appellate court upheld a lower court ruling that a newspaper can see a secret legal settlement with former Nashville Kats cheerleaders who sued after discovering they had been videotaped in their dressing room. The ruling released yesterday came in an open-records lawsuit filed by The Tennessean. The 14 cheerleaders for the arena football team filed a $13 million lawsuit against two men accused of secretly videotaping them undressing and in "other private acts." The lawsuit also named Powers Management, which employed the men, and the NHL Nashville Predators as defendants. Powers Management runs the Gaylord Entertainment Center, the city-owned arena where the Kats play, and the company is owned by Predators owner Craig Leipold. The Tennessean sought the settlement records, contending they were open because they involved a publicly owned arena. Powers refused on the grounds it is a private firm. Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Hamilton Gayden ruled that the settlement was public record because Powers Management operates the arena on behalf of Metro Nashville government. His ruling also required the company to file the settlement with the court clerk's office, which would make it available to the public. Read more about it. ANOTHER VICTORY IN DELAWARE: The Delaware Public Integrity Commission has been ordered by the state Attorney General’s Office to turn over a copied database to The News Journal of Wilmington, Del., the Journal reported today. The Commission had previously turned down the Journal’s Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of its database, which the Journal wanted to analyze in order to assess financial disclosure forms from lobbyists and state officials. The argument for denial of access was that many of the records had been available either physically or online, and that the database was therefore not needed, the Journal reported. The commission also argued that the disclosure of the database would pose a risk of identity theft, in the event that officials’ names and banking institutions should be published on the Journal’s Web site. Deputy Attorney General W. Michael Tupman stated in his ruling that the commission had violated Delaware’s public records law: “We believe that under Delaware FOIA an existing electronic database is a public record separate and distinct from the underlying records used to compile the database. Under FOIA, a public body cannot respond to a request for information in electronic form by supplying paper records that contain the same information.” Tupman addressed the concerns about identity theft by allowing the commission to withhold the personal information of lobbyists, but not the names of the banks, mutual funds, and stock holdings. David Ledford, the executive editor of the Journal, said in the paper’s article that the ruling was “an important victory for the citizens of Delaware. “The state's Public Integrity Commission was established to ensure that state government is accountable to the citizenry it serves. It's reassuring that the commission will not be permitted to hide behind a wall of secrecy.” Read more about it. REDACTION THE WAY WE LIKE IT: “A keyboard cover will need to be installed on the computer.” That doesn’t sound like a state secret. But when East Carolina University turned over documents recently to a group seeking to investigate how universities are dealing with biosafety issues, the university redacted that phrase. Or at least East Carolina thought it did. To redact documents, which colleges do when they must release papers that contain personal information or — in this case, information that they claim would create security risks — a two-step process is used. First, the information that is being withheld is blacked out with a marker. Then the page is photocopied, and that’s what gets released. If you use the marker but release the original, anyone holding the document up to light can read what was covered up. That’s what East Carolina is being reminded of — in an incident that some critics of university information policies say shows that institutions are routinely keeping secret information that in no way is related to security. East Carolina skipped the second step (photocopying) when responding to a recent request from the Sunshine Project for information on how the university reviews research on biological weapons. Not only did the university turn over documents in which the attempt at redaction failed, but it also turned over internal e-mail messages — including some with another university — about how it would respond to the Freedom of Information Request. Now the Sunshine Project — a group that opposes the spread of biological weapons and has been critical of some university research in that area — has released some of the documents, saying that they provide evidence that universities needlessly keep secret details that should be public, and that universities will grasp at any rationale for keeping research secret. “We were struck by how much insipid and utterly ordinary information was removed in the name of biosecurity,” the Sunshine Project said, in a statement accompanying the documents. For example, East Carolina officials accidentally gave the project drafts in which officials considered whether they could keep secret all information about research on herpes, “as if the U.S. was threatened by terrorist cold sores.” Read more about it. INDIANA COURT: KNIGHT FIRING RECORDS ARE WORK PRODUCT: Two Indiana University trustees who investigated Bob Knight were acting as attorneys and do not have to reveal details that led to the firing of the former IU basketball coach, a judge ruled yesterday. The decision was a defeat for The Indianapolis Star's 5-year-old lawsuit, which contended that IU violated the state's open records law in its refusal to release the unfiltered information related to Knight's dismissal in May 2000. Special Judge Jane Craney of Morgan County ruled that the records were exempt from the state's Access to Public Records Act because they were "work product" protected by attorney-client privilege. Read the article. IN THE STATEHOUSES: UPDATES ON FOI LEGISLATION"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 16, 1788 NY GUV TO SIGN FOI BILL: Gov. George Pataki said Wednesday he will strengthen the state Freedom of Information Law by allowing citizens to collect legal fees when they are wrongly denied public documents from government officials.Pataki revealed that he would sign the law Wednesday during the rededication ceremony of a state office building in Albany. The governor said the bill will make government more accountable. The law will allow courts to force local and state governments and school districts to pay attorney's fees to a citizen, group, business or news organization denied access even if there isn't a broad public interest in the records. The law also would allow a court to force government and school districts to pay court costs if officials had no "reasonable basis for denying access" or they failed to respond to a request within the time required by law. In practice, the measure could prevent any denials of records by officials who knew individuals, groups or news organizations didn't have the resources to sue to overturn the denial. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSFOI IS GOOD FOR US! The Freedom of Information Act is clearly increasing people’s confidence in public authorities, according to new research published by the Information Commissioner’s Office.The findings show that 72% of individuals have more confidence in public authorities because of freedom of information, compared with only 55% in spring 2005, when the Act had only just come into force. Around three quarters of individuals (74%) questioned felt the Freedom of Information Act helped to promote accountability and transparency in public authorities, a significant rise from just over half in 2005. The research also shows that 76% of individuals believe the Act has increased their knowledge of public authorities, a jump from 62% in 2005. Public authorities continue to have a positive attitude towards the Act. Some 82% of public authorities believe the Freedom of Information Act is needed. Commenting on the research, Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, said: “It is extremely encouraging to see the positive impact the Freedom of Information Act is having on individuals. A great deal of information has been released over the past 18 months, which would not otherwise have been in the public domain. Almost every day, the phrase “released under the Freedom of Information Act” appears in both national and local newspapers, reporting the wide range of information that has been disclosed, from restaurant hygiene inspections, and university examination pass rates, to details of politicians’ expenses, European Union farm subsidies and hospital mortality rates. Increased confidence in public authorities is clearly of benefit to both individuals and organisations, showing that greater openness is starting to change the culture of government at all levels” Read more. CANADA’S OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT? Any journalist who skirts the Access to Information Act to gain government information will become a criminal, if the government prevails in its court case against Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill, her lawyer argued in court yesterday. David Paciocco argued that the Security of Information Act -- originally intended to prevent spies and traitors from gaining secret information that might jeopardize Canada's national security -- is now being re-interpreted by the government as "the enforcement arm of the Access to Information Act." "They are asking you to take a definition of 'protected information' from an administrative statute (the Access to Information Act) and use it to give length, breadth and definition to a crime," Mr. Paciocco told Superior Court Justice Lynn Ratushny. The Access to Information Act, passed in 1983, allows journalists and the general public to apply for disclosure of government records. Theoretically, the records are to be disclosed within 30 days, with only some narrow exemptions for protected information. In reality, however, disclosure of government records under Access to Information commonly takes months or years, and large parts of the records are often blacked out. Journalists frequently circumvent the act and turn to sources within political circles or the public service to receive more complete and timely information about the inner workings of government. But that activity would become criminal if the Crown prevails against Ms. O'Neill, Mr. Paciocco argued. Read more about it. CANADIANS PLAN SUNSHINE WEEK: With reforms to Freedom of Information (FOI) laws stalled in the federal legislature, Canadian access ombudsmen and the Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA) intend to raise public awareness of government Sunshine issues with the nation's first-ever Right to Know Week to be held Sept. 24-30. "CNA has been a long-time advocate of access to information, and freedom of information issues, and we've done a number of activities over the years to highlight it," CNA's vice president for public policy, David Gollob said in a telephone interview Monday. "But this is the first time there's ever been a coordinated series of events across the country like this." To mark the event, CNA will release its second national FOI audit. Similar to U.S. state-wide efforts typically coordinated by the Society of Professional Journalists and The Associated Press, the first audit, released in June of 2005 found that FOI laws are honored more in the breach than the observance. Read more about it. ON THE EDITORIAL PAGESNat Hentoff on the recent decision rejecting the administration’s latest “state secrets” claim: “At last, a federal judge has refused to automatically, reverentially bow to a Bush administration lawyer demanding a case be shut down without being heard because it involves "state secrets." The Electronic Frontier Foundation had filed a suit against AT&T claiming the company "has given the National Security Agency secret, direct access to phone calls and e-mails — handing over communications logs detailing the activities of millions of ordinary Americans."Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco — pointing to the continuing, widespread public controversy over the president's secretly authorizing the NSA's warrantless disregard of individual privacy rights — ruled that there was no urgent state need for secrecy. Moreover, he added significantly, "it is important to note that even the state-secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it ... To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty." Most importantly — if other federal judges take courage from Judge Walker's insistence on the rule of law — he said (and future historians will quote): "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enforcement of security..." Read the entire editorial. Indianapolis Star Editor Dennis Ryerson defends the list of PUBLIC salaries: “Last Sunday's Indianapolis Star included a front-page analysis of salaries paid state employees. It was standard and, I think, useful journalism fare. We told you that, as a rule, Indiana workers make less than those in similar jobs in other states. Women make less than men; black state employees make less than whites. All well and good. But we did more than just provide perspective on state pay. We also posted the salaries of every state employee, including those at five state universities, on our Web site, IndyStar.com. Many of you, particularly those working for the state, are asking why. "You had no right to show my neighbors and others MY (and every other state employee) specific annual salary!" one government worker wrote in the "Feedback" section of our IndyStar.com package. She said we could have just shown the pay rates based on job titles. As always, however, there are two sides. We also heard from people saying what we had done was a public service. "I see nothing wrong in publishing these salaries," another person wrote. "What it does show is what we, the taxpayers, receive for our money. It also shows those dedicated employees who are far below the curve." We considered such views before deciding to post the salaries. Just because this kind of information exists, and just because our Web site now enables us to post huge volumes of data, doesn't automatically mean there is public interest in our doing so. Our reasons for publishing were these: There is great public interest in this information. By Friday morning, we had logged more than 350,000 page views on the salary database. (If you read a page on our Web site, that is a page view.) It was no surprise to me that 28,000 visits to the salary database came from state government employees. The best government is a transparent government. Is there nepotism at play? Are some people getting special favors in terms of compensation? Publishing this kind of information helps keep government honest. The information could be useful to the state employees themselves. A university employee wrote that when her campus newspaper published the salaries of faculty and staff, she learned that others doing the same job were being paid considerably more than she was. She challenged her pay rate, and was granted a $5,000 increase. The entire editorial. Subscribing to The ADVOCATE LISTSERVTo subscribe:
To unsubscribe:
Note: LISTSERV will automatically pull your e-mail address out of the message; you don't need to include it. You must always send messages to the list from the original e-mail account you used to subscribe. NFOIC Staff
|
|