Good Intentions Breed Bad Potential Outcomes in Colorado…

Freshman Rep. Brittany Pettersen’s House Bill 1041 (pdf) seeks to heighten public accountability by updating the Colorado Open Records Act. Her measure would prevent officials from requiring that people who ask for public documents review them in person before receiving copies. It was a legislative update activists applauded, until they read the bill, which they now decry as being ambiguously worded and ripe for abuse.

“It’s been a frustrating experience, even if it’s all part of the process,” said Pettersen. “It’s unfortunate, I think, on one level, because lawmakers in the future may be less willing to take up issues related to the Open Records Act and, on another, because the activists are right to see larger issues that need addressing.”

Marilyn Marks, founder of Aspen-based Citizen Center and a lightning-rod figure for controversy tied to records access, originally supported Petterson’s effort but is now leading the charge against it. In a letter to the editor published in the The Colorado Statesman last week, Marks called Pettersen “petulant” for not meeting with activists, and called House Bill 1041 an “anti-transparency bill.” She believes lobbyists have worked to include language in the bill that would make it possible for obstructionist records custodians to charge high fees to records seekers and shut down meaningful document review.

Veterans of battles over the Open Records Act are unsurprised by the suspicions rising up around the bill in the activist community.

Steve Zansberg, a top media attorney in the state and one of the architects of the bill, said it makes sense that government accountability champions like Marks guard their right to access vigilantly and are wary of any proposed changes to records laws — even changes they may have initially supported.

“I understand folks who have had bad experiences with records custodians and so come to the bill with suspicions. They see vague language and they view that vagueness as a ‘trap for the unwary,’” he said. “But all language is susceptible to abuse. No legislation will work 100 percent of the time to protect against bad faith.”

Katie Fleming, Colorado associate director of government accountability group Common Cause, was also not surprised by the heat the bill has drawn.

“The Open Records Act is one of the most effective ways the public has to hold officials accountable and to make sure laws are working. It’s just going to generate lots of interest every time you talk about it,” she said.

Read more here.

In aftermath of Aurora mass shootings, secrecy reigns…

AURORA, CO – JULY 20: Investigators are on the scene at the Century 16 movie theatre where a gunmen attacked movie goers during an early morning screening of the new Batman movie, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ July 20, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado. According to reports, over 10 people have been killed and over 30 injured. Police have the suspect, twenty-four year old James Holmes of North Aurora, in custody. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Tightening the secrecy over the year Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes spent studying neuroscience, a judge has barred the University of Colorado Denver from releasing any records about the former graduate student’s time there.

What happened to the 24-year-old during his time in the program at the school’s Anschutz Medical Campus is one of the many mysteries stemming from last Friday’s mass shooting at a theater in which he’s accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises.”…

Numerous media organizations, including The Associated Press, filed open records requests for school records about Holmes after he was named as the suspect in the shooting that happened just after midnight July 20.

But in an order signed Monday and released by the school Thursday in response to an open records request by the AP, District Court Judge William Blair Sylvester said releasing information in response to requests filed under the Colorado Open Records Act would “impede an ongoing investigation.” Sylvester is overseeing the criminal case against Holmes, who is expected to appear in court Monday and be formally charged.

Mark Caramanica, freedom of information director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va., called the order “highly unorthodox.” He said it was unusual that a public institution would consult with an outside entity instead of just following the law and answering the request.

“It seems very premature for a court to get involved and make such a sweeping order,” Caramanica said. “It seems like a very broad and overly aggressive approach.”

 

Related articles

• Colo judge bans release of suspect’s univ. docs – Boston Globe
• James Holmes’ School Records: University Of Colorado Barred From Releasing Aurora Suspect’s Info

Denver Post Loses Bid For Pol’s Cell Phone Records…

Though they succeeded in getting Denver Mayor-Elect Michael Hancock to release his cell phone records, theDenver Post wasn’t so lucky in their attempts to see whom former Gov. Bill Ritter has been chatting with.

The Post’s efforts to see the personal cell phone records of Ritter, a request made in 2008, was thwarted by the Colorado Supreme Court Monday, which ruled that the Post’s claim that Ritter’s personal cell phone records did not fall under the Colorado Open Records Act.

Under the CORA, “…any person may request access to inspect and obtain a copy of any public record. … a public record is defined as any writing ‘made, maintained or kept by . . . any . . . political subdivision of the state . . . for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule.’ This provision makes clear that records that involve no expenditure of public funds are nevertheless “public records,” and are subject to inspection under the CORA. . . .”

While the Post argued that if a public official uses his personal phone for official government business, those phone records become public record, the Supreme Court ruled that the Post had to first prove that the Ritter, who opted not to seek a second term, had actually used his personal cell phone (in addition to a state-issued Blackberry) for government business, rather than simply conclude that he did. Since they failed to do so, the court said, Ritter was under no obligation to produce records proving that he did not use his personal cell phone for such purposes.

AP: Colorado Government-Funded Cellphone Bill Hard to Figure…

Image via CrunchBase

A nice piece of FOI-driven work from the Associated Press, even if they couldn’t quite put a precise price tag on it…

Colorado officials insist they’re combing through state spending to try to close an estimated half-billion dollar shortfall — but figuring out exactly how much Colorado pays for employees’ mobile devices is nearly impossible, and it’s a tab that largely has gone unnoticed.

And a bit later:

The AP sought public records from 19 state departments for this story.

OIT estimated that Colorado spends about $3.6 million per year on cellphones and other wireless devices, a figure based on multiplying last December’s state bill of about $313,000 by 12 months. OIT officials said it would be impossible to produce annual data for previous years because the information is not centrally maintained. OIT said it happened to have December’s tab but didn’t have other monthly totals available.

Those numbers don’t include employees of Colorado public colleges, whose budgets aren’t centrally tracked, or the state’s 100 lawmakers, who don’t have state-paid phones.

Rep. Jon Becker, a Republican who sits on the Joint Budget Committee, said it should be easier to determine how much the state pays — and for which services.

“Because $3.6 million, if that is the correct (number), and I do not know the correct number at this point, if that is the correct number, it’s not a drop in the bucket,” Becker said.

More at:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M89MEO0.htm