Open Session, Sunday

January 23, 2011

Open Session, Sunday

Filed under: Open Session — mary @ 10:17 am

Sunshine, football, all the local goings on… do you have any issues on your mind? Thoughts, questions, ideas?

Comments (16)

16 Comments

There is a new public records bill in the works. This one is designed to protect government records/documents that turn up missing for whatever reason so the AG’s office or prosecuter will have the ability to recover those records. Evidently, if someone takes the records from the proper custodian – let’s say – county clerk – there is no law that says that it is illegal?It also provides for the judge to get a court order for those records where ever they might be?

I guess that this law would have allowed Judge Hosack to order necessary records concerning the elections contest in the event that the county/city would not produce them. Huh? I don’t get it (Like the computer records?). Evidently, we have people holding “records” of an important nature off site and out of reach from the general public just in case someone asks for them? Maybe that is why it takes HOURS AND HOURS to find something?

Senate Bill 1026

Statement of Purpose

Comment by Stebbijo — January 23, 2011 @ 12:47 pm
Stebbijo,

As long as the suit in replevin doesn’t somehow interfere with or compromise the already existing criminal laws that make the theft, alteration, and destruction of public records (property of the People of the State of Idaho) a crime, I think it’s okay.

Comment by Bill — January 23, 2011 @ 4:12 pm
LOL. Bill, that is kinda of the way I thought about this as well. This law appears to remove liability when something is caught by the public in regard to poor government recordkeeping or lack thereof. The Idaho way – if it gets too close for comfort – draft a law where it looks like the judge is trying to get the records that nobody knows where they are located or who took them (just via someone’s reasonable grounds that someone has the records illegally) and then it all appears like they did everything they could to get them. No records, no proof, no case.

Comment by Stebbijo — January 23, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
Stebbijo,

The easy, not cheap but easy, solution is to immediately digitize everything documentary that comes in immediately when it comes in. File the original hard copy in the “Touch this and die, swarthy dog!” file. Let everyone work from conformed digital copies. Periodically, like daily, back up digitals to offsite secure storage.

Comment by Bill — January 23, 2011 @ 6:45 pm
Bill, you have a “touch this and die, swarthy dog!” file? I never knew that about you!

Comment by mary — January 23, 2011 @ 9:57 pm
Mary, you touched briefly in your latest column on Tom Luna’s education reform plan. You ought to put up a post about it – I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the package he proposed.

Comment by KootenaiConservative — January 23, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Bill, Kootenai County is supposed to be part of a pilot project where everything is scanned and put on a CD in the event there is an appeal. I think scanning the record as the case builds it is the only reasonable solution. Going back to scratch to scan that elections case certainly would have it’s downside when it comes to accuracy.

Also, another rule on the table is that of personal information that has been entered into the court record. The judicial personal record committee is making that the sole resposibility of the lawyers and parties – this releases liability if/when personal information gets into the public record that should be protected. It takes it off the judge’s back so they do not have to pay attention to their own administrative court rules. Some of that information includes street addresses, ssn, birthdates, financial account numbers ect. It is kind of hilarious because they actually mention that they should abide by federal rules except they may change the SSN disclosure to the last three instead of four. The privacy statutes have always been there – it’s just nobody paid attention to them. Some agencies don’t even know how to properly redact information.

I understand that the only recourse is to sue your lawyer/or theirs for contempt if he does not fix it – providing that you or anyone else has researched the law enough to know when a violation has occurred. Anything (personal) scanned into the record needs to be redacted first – if something is there.

Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 8:14 am
Thanks, KC, I’m working on it.

Comment by mary — January 24, 2011 @ 9:38 am
Did you notice the new headline on the Drudge Report that Rham Emanuel has been taken off the ballot for Mayor of Chicago? The Appeals court said this:

“A candidate must meet not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy,” the court stated in the decision.”

Maybe Rahm needs to come to Idaho, where you can run for office after saying that rather than living with your family in your home outside the city limits, you have lived in a city friend’s basement bedroom for a month. And Idaho is also a state where you can vote in our city election even if you’ve been living in Canada for 20 years.

Chicago’s rules make way more sense than ours!

Comment by mary — January 24, 2011 @ 11:52 am
It is unsettling in this day and age with public/personal opinion flourishing via our technology giving us all power to our voices, yet articles still surface to make us feel that is wrong. A recent article about Facebook and other social media tells us this:

“Avoid comments about hot-button issues such as religion, politics and controversial topics. Regardless of how passionate you are about a topic, be leery of voicing your opinion in a public arena.”

God, I am glad I am too old to give a damn. The quote came from an MSN headline, How Facebook Can Blow It For You. The article also recommends that you do searches on yourself so you know what’s out there. Well, I guess I (and many of us here) won’t be working for the state, county, or city anytime soon. 😉

Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 3:52 pm
Stebbijo,

I do not participate on facebook for that very reason. Society is being taught not to have an opinion. As with McEuen, who gives a damn who it hurts as long as those in power get their way. They should all be given the crappy wages that they pay to live on in this day and age for one year and THEN see how they like taxes raised on every little whim they wish for.

Comment by concerned citizen — January 24, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
cc – it is so wrong. I don’t post photos of any of my children most likely for the same reasons – I don’t want to be the one that blows their privacy. Because of this paranoia so to speak – who wants their photo taken in any place that might look like fun with a drink in hand? I know several young people who have no problem posting their party pictures on Facebook and it does not appear to have hurt their employment. Idaho hires and fires just because you know the wrong person – doesn’t really matter if you are on Facebook or not.

With that said, the McEuen endeavor is bigger than most of us – their players have free advertizing on other-local-blogs and if you dare challenge those opinions especially if you are an Idaho slave – all it takes is a phone call to ruin your slave position. That has nothing to do with Facebook – that is just the local way.

But, McEuen is using Facebook to get perspectives out -I am leary of giving them my PERSONAL info for their survey so that my survey is deemed valid. My question is the survey produced on Facebook – public information? Do we have rights to it? Can people lose jobs if they voice their opinion on that site?

Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
… or better yet – lose careers?

Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
I actually know of a young man that worked for a client of mine. He was fired, and rightly so, for posting pics of the home and contents on his facebook page.

However, a letter writer in a press column wrote how they were basically chastised by Doug Eastwood for “QUESTIONING” team McEuens plan.

This IS how CdA works. We peons are not allowed to question even though it is OUR tax money paying for it. I can think of better things my money can go to like, my MORTGAGE, my almost 20% INCREASE in taxes, my child’s hospital bills, etc.

Comment by concerned citizen — January 24, 2011 @ 4:46 pm
Posting proprietary information to a public site is not the right thing to do – in that case a person has crossed the line. But, so many people do not understand that they did anything wrong. Social media is like getting together and sharing a conversation but the venue is technology – you are exposed and maybe sharing something that you should not. But, if a person is contacted and they do not remove the questionable post then they are pushing it. Facebook makes you identify yourself. I think it is a fine line – I also think it is a very fine line that the McEuen survey is almost demanding your personal information in order to validate a survey which they are almost treating like a valid VOTE. Something is very wrong.

Comment by Stebbijo — January 24, 2011 @ 5:15 pm
Does anyone have any thoughts about the Idaho nullification plans that several lawmakers are pushing concerning federal oversight and health reform? I know that Washington is complying. I wonder though if Idaho is taking the wrong path since – FINALLY – our own AG – Brain Kane has told us, that Idaho cannot pick and choose what federal laws they want to abide by. But, they always have. My concerns are if these plans move forward will this also dissolve Health and Welfare which we know relys on lots of federal money? I wonder how Patti Lodge – Chairman to the H&W senate committee who is also married to a federal judge feels about all of this? I am anxious for more legislators to speak out on this development.

Comment by Stebbijo — January 26, 2011 @ 9:09 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.