HB 1 Bill Up for Vote in House This Week
This is from Rebecca at Progressive Dems of Delaware:
House Bill 01 of the 145th General Assembly is scheduled to come to the floor
for a vote on Thursday, March 19th. An actual floor vote! Wow! That’s as
close as we’ve come in over five years.We need to be there to support Speaker Gilligan as he tries to pass this
historic piece of legislation. Green tee shirts, sunflowers, and lots of Open
Government Supporters in the House Gallery. Let’s go and support our
progressive members of the House!The Progressive Dems for Sussex County are bringing twenty members to support
this bill. How many of you are coming?WHAT: Open Government Vote in the House of Representatives
WHEN: Thursday, March 19th, 2:00PM
WHERE: Delaware House of Representatives, Leg Hall, DoverPlease mark your calendars now and show up on the 19th. We haven’t won this
battle and your presence is necessary.
If you can go, you should and I don’t think that Rebecca and her crew will mind if you come without a tee shirt or sunflower.
I do hope you can go, the more voices supporting this thing the better. Especially since only two of the many promised amendments have been prefiled:
- HA1 by Keeley: This amendment clarifies that all Legislative bodies and committees are covered by FOIA, except the Ethics Committee; adds a definition to the word “caucus” and makes any communications between the Legislator and a constituent and any communications a Legislator might have on behalf of a constituent exempt from FOIA
- HA2 by Schwartzkopf: Specifically exempts email between members of the General Assembly or their staff from FOIA requirements.
So what do you think about these amendments? Have any of you heard about the contents of any other possible amendments lurking out there? And lastly, who is going to this Thursday afternoon?
Tags: Open Government
As someone who has had a little experience in the area, ‘Bulo supports exempting communication, e-mail or in other forms, between constituents and legislators.
The Beast Who Slumbers is a member of the John Flaherty Fan Club. However, these forms of communication should be exempt to protect both the privacy of the constituent and the ability of the constituent to feel comfortable in seeking assistance.
‘Bulo will give you a real life situation, and it’s occurred several times, that may serve to illustrate his point.
Constituents with loved ones in the correctional system often contact their legislators to express concerns about medical care that is, or is not, being provided. It is a very tricky matter under the best of circumstances to get those concerns resolved without arousing the suspicions of people in the system who might resent being called out.
Making e-mails public would have a chilling effect on this kind of constituent service, and many others that ‘Bulo could mention. And it would be the constituent at risk from having these e-mails made public, not the legislator.
Maybe you could exempt constituent communication when said constituent is a registered lobbyist from the Schwartzkopf amendment, but otherwise, ‘Bulo supports the intent of the amendments.
So what constitutes a “constituent”? All kinds of business gets done via email — how do you stop these guys from claiming that is a constituent? Because part of the idea here is limit opportunities for backroom or even self dealing.
Email can be handled by having personal information redacted. That is how it is handled now, in general. I think an email exemption is too broad.
By definition, a constituent is someone who resides in the Senatorial District or Representative District of the legislator in question. Which is why ‘Bulo suggested “exempt(ing) constituent communication when said constituent is a registered lobbyist from the Schwartzkopf amendment”, in clearer words, requiring such communication to be made public.
I think Keeley’s amendment covers constituent communications quite clearly and renders Schwartzkopf’s unnecessary. Amendment 2 covers all emails, which would have the effect of making communications now available unavailable. If Rep.1 is emailing Rep. 2, and it is not covered by the caucus exemption (total BS, but that’s a post for another hour), it should be public.
Trip to Dover is not really possible, but that won’t keep me from registering my opinion with Rep. Kovach and Sen. McDowell.
Another Mike may be right. It would not be a surprise if only one of the amendments was run, or if an amendment which captures the intent of both amendments, without making the exceptions too broad, was run in place of HA’s 1 & 2.
For those headed down, try to get the amendments in advance from a friendly legislator, and read them carefully. They might not be available until Thursday, so stay on your toes.
Both amendments have been filed and numbered are can be seen at
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.nsf/vwLegislation/HB+1?Opendocument
You guys are really missing the damn point.
E-mail is the same as regular mail, and should be treated as such. The only exemptions should be based on content, NOT form.
If there’s a sensitive medical issue or other involved, it’s easy to redact it. Just take a black marker and strike through it. Done.
If you exempt legislator-to-legislator and constituent-to-legislator communications, who the hell is left? Legislator-to-bureaucrat? That’s so far neutered it doesn’t even deserve to be brought up for a vote.
I agree with anon here. We talked about this in other open government threads and I don’t think that just allowing email to be excluded is a smart idea. Allow email or correspondence to be redacted for personal information, but don’t put it all out of bounds.
Anon, I agree totally with you. I just don’t think there’s a chance of this passing without some kind of blanket “constituent communication” exemption. I hate it, think it’s completely unnecessary and wrong, but that’s the reality we face here.
You are absolutely correct, though.
I favor the beauty and simplicity of treating email as mail–personal information can/should be redacted.
I have yet to hear a rational argument for treating email differently from mail. Email is merely the 21st century incarnation of mail.
The main point of HB 1 is to let sunlight shine in on the legislative process, most specifically the Joint Finance Committee and Bond Bill Committee, since about 80% of the legislative process annually revolves around the budget.
‘Bulo does not see what could be gained from opening up emails to prying eyes. After all, does anyone really think that lobbyists and legislators cut quid pro quo deals on the state e-mail system? The Beast Who Slumbers knows that deals are cut, but you’re not gonna find ’em on state e-mail threads.
Conversely, opening up e-mail correspondence will have a chilling effect on legislators’ ability to provide constituent service b/c constituents will be much more hesitant to share information.
“… does anyone really think that lobbyists and legislators cut quid pro quo deals on the state e-mail system? The Beast Who Slumbers knows that deals are cut, but you’re not gonna find ‘em on state e-mail threads.
I am rapidly losing respect for El Som.
The point of this whole bill is that WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING RIGHT NOW – on e-mail, via fax, through the postal system. We simply don’t know. Do you want to take Thurman Adams’ word for it that he’s not cutting deals through the state e-mail system? Really? You trust him that much?
Besides, there’s a really easy alternative. Make ALL legislators’ e-mail public. Rewrite the FOIA law to have it apply to personal, private e-mail accounts if they’re used for public business. Easy.
Town councils can’t get around the open-meetings requirements by holding round-robin meetings with less than a quorum. Public officials shouldn’t be allowed to get around the records laws requirements by using Yahoo Mail.
Conversely, opening up e-mail correspondence will have a chilling effect on legislators’ ability to provide constituent service b/c constituents will be much more hesitant to share information.
No, it won’t.
The solution is easy: Create specific exemptions like those that exist in the federal law, or in the laws of other states… or like those that already apply in Delaware’s own FOIA law. Exempt medical information, confidential state personnel information, etc. Give the job of reviewing and redacting that exempt information to an impartial office.
Do NOT create a blanket exemption for all e-mail from constituents. That’s shitty policy, and I’m very disappointed in Schwartzkopf for even thinking of it.
The word “constituents” sounds good. It conjures up images of a little old lady having problems with Medicare, or a town that wants a new stop sign to protect kids crossing to the school bus. The brave, bold, strong legislator steps in and waves the magic “Constituent Service!” wand, and voila! Problem solved, pothole fixed, red tape cut with a snip of their efficient scissors.
But El Som and everyone else who supports the amendment conveniently forgets that constituents can also be those who employ lobbyists. They can also be developers, contributors, political party chairmen, local business heavyweights, fire chiefs, mayors and more. Shouldn’t the public have a RIGHT TO KNOW what those people are talking to their legislators about?
Under the amendment to H.B. 1, if a big contributor-constituent asks a legislator to do something, and the legislator agrees, that information would be public if they struck the deal through the mail. If they did it through e-mail, IT WOULD BE SECRET. All this is going to do is push everything that legislators don’t want known onto e-mail.
And you’ve just lost the ability to keep an eye on what they’re doing.
Thanks for nothin’, Pete.
Sorry, the reference to the constituent exemption should have referred to Keeley and Hudson, not Schwartzkopf.
Addendum: In HA 1, what defines a “constituent”? Someone who lives in a legislator’s district? OK, that sounds reasonable. So who is going to look up each corrrespondent’s address and doublecheck that they live exactly in the geographic limits of the district? And what happens to e-mails sent en masse to, say, all the New Castle County members of the House by someone who lives just in one of those districts? Under this amendment, the e-mail would be public if requested from a legislator who does not represent the writer’s district … thus making the entire amendment completely worthless in a large number of cases.
Anon: They’re not cutting deals on state e-mail. They may be stupid, but not THAT stupid. They all have their own Blackberries, cell phones, etc. Plus, they can have a lobbyist come into the office, close the door, and make a deal.
The one thing that they’re taught is don’t put anything in writing or e-mail unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Yes, ‘Bulo believes Thurman Adams is cutting deals and acts in ethically-questionable ways. HE’S JUST NOT DOING IT ON STATE E-MAIL.
‘Bulo is starting work on a long series about the Delaware Way and the ethical negative synergy that goes on in Leg Hall. He is not trying to defend the moral rectitude of lawmakers.
But you’re looking in the wrong place if you’re looking at state e-mail. You’ll see a lot of DELDOT service requests, empty thank-yous to constituents for sharing their views, and the like.
The stuff anon references goes on, but it doesn’t go on on state e-mail.
And the argument that somehow personal information can be redacted if necessary ignores how staffing is in Dover. Unlike County Council members(who each have their own assistants, a waste of $$’s, IESHO), legislators share assistants w/each assistant having 3 or more legislators. That’s pretty much all the direct staff that legislators have. To expect assistants to go through every e-mail and redact personal info is not realistic.
And one more question for anon, who ‘Bulo respects: Who exactly from the media is going to have the time to go through this largely mind-numbing exercise in futility?
If the media wants to smoke out unethical legislators, they have plenty of places to start. For example they could start with ‘Who does the legislator work for? How and when did they get that job? What about their relatives? And what prospective conflicts-of-interest are present’? That’s a much richer vein to mine. And that’s a vein that ‘Bulo intends to mine if the media doesn’t beat him to it. The media has more resources, so the Beast Who Slumbers wishes they would, but he’s not waiting for them.
“Who exactly from the media is going to have the time to go through this largely mind-numbing exercise in futility?”
Uhm… If this is what you really think, why the hell is H.B. 1 coming up for a vote in the first place? Why are there FOIA laws to begin with? No ordinary Joe Schmoe is going to have the time to file a FOIA request. So piss on the peons.
It’s not just chasing down unethical legislators. It’s about understanding how they operate.
It is also about not giving them any natural places to hide, either.
The email exclusion has alot of merit — I’m in change of a neighborhood association and am stunned at the kind of stuff people will tell me — but legislator email is work email. And most workplaces these days have rules about work email that makes all of it the property of the employer.
FOIA for the Feds works on the redaction method. And I don’t imagine that this is that big of a task for an aide or secretary. Unless you have someone who has asked for all email from 2000 til now. It seems that the request has to ask for something specific, and whoever is pulling that email is already doing the work to exclude the emails that don’t count.
The other thing on this is that there does exist software that will archive and search though email, largely focused on firms that have to keep email (Lawfirms) and as I understand it, this software can help do some of the redacting.
Presumably, HB 1 is coming up for a vote so that, for example, the reporters in Leg Hall can actually see how decisions are made on the budget, rather than being shooed out of the room so that JFC and Bond Bill can cut deals in Executive Session. So that presumably the Senate (by far the worst offender) will have to actually open up committee meetings, and hold them in places large enough for the public to attend, not in some tiny office.
‘Bulo views the e-mail component as really secondary to the primary issue. He has failed to convince several people, good people who are essential to ensuring open government, of his positions. And that’s OK. Much better a bill that includes the e-mail provision that anon supports than no bill at all. Just be warned that senators (the House is gonna pass it with or without the provision) may use it as a pretext to defeat or bury the legislation.
Plus, and perhaps it’s his bias showing, he is friends with many of the staff people, understands the pressures they are put under, knows that this will both increase their work and decrease their productivity exponentially and, in the highly-unlikely event that something DOES show up, the legislator will simply blame it on the staffer, who will be in deep doo-doo.
“Unless you have someone who has asked for all email from 2000 til now. It seems that the request has to ask for something specific…”
Nope. You could ask for that wide a range of records, if they exist, but you could be charged for search time and reproduction of documents.
Anon would also like to note that not all county council members have individual staffers. That’s just in NCCo, as I understand it. Sussex sure doesn’t.
‘Bulo should have specified NCC, his county of residence.
Has El Som ever worked in Leg Hall, or in close proximity?