GREENSBORO, NC -- A lawyer friend and I were recently having a conversation about Greensboro City Council members' almost certain noncompliance with North Carolina public records law, prompted by a request he made that he is convinced will not be properly fulfilled. The problem, we agree, is twofold:
- Public records in personal accounts kept secret.
City Council members do not seem to take seriously that the law requires that any record "made or received in connection with the transaction of public business," even if its location is in a personal account or on a private computer, must be considered a public record and made available on request. It has been my experience to not receive emails from the personal accounts of city council members in response to a records request, even though I knew them to have existed.
- Text messages are ignored.
With the exception of a single instance involving the cooperation of Councilmember Zack Matheny, I have never received copies of text messages in response to a records request, even though I knew them to have existed. Yet, text messages are just as much a public record, subject to retention and disclosure, as are emails.
This from Tom Vincent of the agency charged with administering records retention in North Carolina, the
Department of Cultural Resources:
"We schedule records by content, not by format. So text messages (like email) would be a public record if they have to do with the transaction of public business."
Tom also pointed me to an informative blog post by Frayda Bluestein of the UNC School of Government, "
Email as Public Record: Five Things You Should Know." Here's an excerpt:
2. The location of an email does not determine whether or not it is a public record. If an email is made or received in connection with the transaction of public business, it is a public record regardless of whether it is created or stored on a public or a private computer or email system. So an email that relates to public business is a public record even if it is sent from a home computer, or made on a personal email account from any computer. This is true whether the email is sent or received by any public employee, or any elected or appointed public official.
I encountered this problem in a different jurisdiction. The Elon School of Law is active on this issue and their website might be helpful. In my case, they ignored my request. They had demanded my name and address plus the reason for my request. These demands are not permitted under the law. After two weeks, my annoyance grew intense. I called the attorney for the jurisdiction and told him that if the email message was not soon given to me, suit would be filed including request to be reimbursed for my legal expenses. I was not bluffing. I got the information the following day.
ReplyDeleteTo add, the reason I knew of the email message is that it was discussed briefly during a regularly scheduled meeting of that body.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, anon. I'm glad your request was fulfilled, but it is frustrating to have to endure the rigmarole. Maybe after an obstructing employee or official gets sued and held personally monetarily liable, as updates to the law now allow, there will be greater cooperation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a little bit of tangent, but also relevant. Government operates very much like a business, and those businesses that have their records subpoenaed by a court will also fall into personal accounts if you happen to mix business into your personal accounts.
ReplyDeleteIn the IT corporate world, it's well known not to ever mix business with personal stuff unless you don't have anything that you'd like to keep private.
This is a similar stance with any corporate based communication tool (cell phones, etc) which also comes back to your article on public record for government. If you're using government resources, or are a public official, then you're subject to those policies and if you mix the two? Umm.. yeaah. Let's just say courts don't wait for you to filter out your private life. ;)