Carrboro's new Official Correspondence e-mail archive shows how easy it is to make the public's business actually available to the public. If you do it as Mayor Chilton did - with a Google Group - it's even free. Chapel Hill News editor Mark Schultz says the new system serves the community better than paper archives used by other governments, and it makes reporters' job easier which leads to better coverage in the papers. It's also very easy for officials to use as they just forward or CC e-mails to get them into the archive.
What's keeping Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Orange County from following suit? Sometimes I wonder if they wouldn't prefer that we just let them govern in peace instead of sticking our noses into the public business all the time.
More Information:
Issues:
Comments
I'll second those three
one question
"It's also very easy for officials to use as they just forward or CC e-mails to get them into the archive."
Does Carrboro rely on the users to do this, or do the Carrboro mail systems automatically forward all sent messages into the Google archiving system?
Mayor's Email Only
All emails sent to MayorChilton@gmail.com are posted to the google group without any action required on the part of the sender. The current google group is an experiment only and it shows only emails sent to my address above, however I can assure you that many important (and not so important) emails are copied or sent to me at that address.
I appreciate the favorable feedback, but I will point out that one side effect of it all is that emails to my office are readily accessible to ANYONE on the web including the local media. Therefore, a sender may wish to be thoughtful about what s/he sends me.
Mark,Thanks for the info --
Mark,
Thanks for the info -- I think this is a really great initiative. Are there any plans to expand this "experiment" beyond your gmail inbox? Does the Carrboro government have e-mail infrastructure or do town officials and functionaries use their personal/business accounts?
Don't Know
Town employees have @townofcarrboro.org or @ci.carrboro.nc.us email addresses. Most of the Aldermen use other email systems of their own.
I can't really tell you whether this method will be used for others or not - such is the nature of an experiment. We'll have to see how it goes.
Mark's system captures our email too
hiding in plain sight
your email correct?
Mark, you say:
the official Town of Carrboro website says your email address is Mark_Chilton@hotmail.com so who is sending emails to you at a gmail address?
and one more thing...
Carrboro also offers a listing of all pending development applications on line on the Town website. What a citizen friendly feature!
Del Snow
ESP
Attempts at transparency in government will only make politicians more careful about what they say. Until we can read the minds of politicians, their true motivation will be hidden.
Tenant apartment numbers-
Tenant apartment numbers- and their private phone numbers- have been included in emails posted in the google group correspondence. Shouldn't personal information be redacted before posting to a public forum?
Transparency is a good thing. Public disclosure of confidential/private information is not.
no discretion
Client Privacy
The Health Department and Department of Social Services must maintain the privacy of certain confidential health care information. Are there not other client confidential areas that could be potentially exposed in unreviewed emails to a government official?
I think the confidentiality interest is waived
under circumstances where someone is communicating with someone when that someone is acting as a public official.
I didn't want to draw
I didn't want to draw attention to the specific emails (but see the "dumpster" thread in the google group). I don't believe that any of the tenants themselves sent emails that included their apartment and phone numbers. This was interoffice correspondence to and from the mayor.
If tenants were told that their private information was going to be posted on the Internet, then fine- but it doesn't look like they were involved in any of the electronic communication posted in the group.
I noticed that someone did remove the personally identifiable info(phone numbers and apartment numbers) from the emails when they were reposted HERE at OP, but in the google group, the emails are as originally written.
I am concerned that an already vulnerable population is being even further exposed - to a landlord whose actions seem (to me) to be a bit on the vengeful side.
If I had a complaint about my landlord- and sent that complaint to the mayor's office- with my contact information- I wouldn't want MY landlord to to read it. I'd probably get a big fat rent increase when my lease renewal came due.
Mr. Lucas seems capable of worse.
landlord retaliation
The possibility (and illegality) or retaliation was discussed with the tenants prior to their filing complaints - as is noted in Ruby's live bloggin post above.
And seriously people, think about it: How hard is it for Lucas to figure out who filed a complaint about a particular apartment? Obviously the complaint typically comes from the tenants.
In any case, whether unit numbers are included in the email or not, the fact and location of the inspections (and the reports that resulted from the inspection) are public records. I didn't publish anyone's private information. Heck, I didn't even mention their names.
?
"I didn't publish anyone's private information. Heck, I didn't even mention their names."
With an address, an apartment number and a phone number, it's pretty easy to get a name. Reverse lookup is a lot easier than it used to be.
And there are lovely people like this who are following the story:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=124780
Creepy, anti-immigrant, racists do creepy things- like harassing innocent people.
just something to consider.
(It was NOT my intention to get into an argument with my mayor!)
Okay.
"It was NOT my intention to get into an argument with my mayor"
That's cool. I don't mean to be too defensive about the matter, but I do feel like I am getting some heat because I am obeying the law and trying to promote open government. There are bound to be inconveniences that come from that, but the only alternative for me is to make public records hard to obtain, which has at least as many downsides.
This is the latest (but by no means the only) occasion when I feel like I am being subjected to extra criticism simply because I choose to be more interactive with constituents via the internet. Lots of elected officials hide behind press-releases and sound-bites, and the heat I sometimes get from OP readers is the reason they do that. Many officials simply prefer not to be treated that way (which is understandable), but the result is that you don't know nearly as much about them, their policies, the work they are doing etc. I think we are all poorer when anyone takes steps that drive our elected officials away from the internet.
instant access to information
Providing online access to public information is the right thing to do, I think. But it takes people a while to grow accustomed to it. There's tons of "public" information that used to require a certain amount of work to find (e.g., going to some musty government office and combing through files and binders). The fact that a lot of this info can now be accessed via Google search takes people aback and makes them think about privacy issues in a new light.
Many people are afraid because the internet has also opened up new ways to "retaliate" against people electronically. In the old days, if you were a thug, you had to at least take the trouble to take a baseball bat to someone's house to beat them up; nowadays, you can mess someone up from thousands of miles away with a few keystrokes.
But the advantages of making public information more accessible outweigh the inherent risks, I think.
Good Work
At the risk of being trounced for saying something supportive or positive about a politician...
THANK YOU Mayor Chilton for being so brave and being involved with your constituents and others online. Its a seriously important thing to do in our digital world.
PLEASE Mayor Foy join us in the conversation. If you have concerns just email or call me. I will do my best to help out.
When rights conflict
One interesting aspect of this discussion is the collision of rights and objectives that both have tons of merit where often such collisions are decided in the Supreme Court.
1)Individual Personal Privacy.
2)Governmental Openness and Transparency which can be translated into the general population's right to know.
Another example of this is the openness of court records versus the individuals right to privacy. In this case the general public wins out but the exception is family court or in the Grand Jury. Medical information normally prevails as private but when public health is threatened that right gives way.
In this situation, the right of the general public to know what their government is doing prevails over the right to privacy. However,where an individual fears serious reprisals, there may need to be a path other than e-mail for the issue or concern to be initially heard.
Also
As for ALIPAC (mentioned in your link above) believe me I hear from such people all the time - not just via their spam, but phone calls, emails, anonymous letters etc.
One senior-citizen called to ask me what I plan to do about the bakery at Carrboro Plaza where no one speaks English. Last year, a letter writer wrote to ask why I let Hispanics congregate on the streets of Carrboro. This week, woman called from Hillsborough to say that I should be driving the Abbey Court residents out of Carrboro. Yesterday, a man called from a Durham phone number to say that I am "no better than Mike Nifong."
Anyway, suffice it to say that I know about that crowd.
Client confidentiality?
Since the town does not have a department of Social Services, the State of North Carolina statute below on confidentiality, exempt from public records law, would not apply??
- - - - - -
§ 108A‑80. Confidentiality of records.
(a) Except as provided in (b) below, it shall be unlawful for any person to obtain, disclose or use, or to authorize, permit, or acquiesce in the use of any list of names or other information concerning persons applying for or receiving public assistance or social services that may be directly or indirectly derived from the records, files or communications of the Department or the county boards of social services, or county departments of social services or acquired in the course of performing official duties except for the purposes directly connected with the administration of the programs of public assistance and social services in accordance with federal law, rules and regulations, and the rules of the Social Services Commission or the Department.
(b) The Department shall furnish a copy of the recipient check register monthly to each county auditor showing a complete list of all recipients of Work First Family Assistance in Standard Program Counties and State‑County Special Assistance for Adults, their addresses, and the amounts of the monthly grants. An Electing County whose checks are not being issued by the State shall furnish a copy of the recipient check register monthly to its county auditor showing a complete list of all recipients of Work First Family Assistance in the Electing County, their addresses, and the amounts of the monthly payments. These registers shall be public records open to public inspection during the regular office hours of the county auditor, but the registers or the information contained therein may not be used for any commercial or political purpose. Any violation of this section shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(c) Any listing of recipients of benefits under any public assistance or social services program compiled by or used for official purposes by a county board of social services or a county department of social services shall not be used as a mailing list for political purposes. This prohibition shall apply to any list of recipients of benefits of any federal, State, county or mixed public assistance or social services program. Further, this prohibition shall apply to the use of such listing by any person, organization, corporation, or business, including but not limited to public officers or employees of federal, State, county, or other local governments, as a mailing list for political purposes. Any violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(d) The Social Services Commission may adopt rules governing access to case files for social services and public assistance programs, except the Medical Assistance Program. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services shall have the authority to adopt rules governing access to medical assistance case files. (1937, c. 288, ss. 18, 48; 1939, c. 395, s. 1; 1957, c. 100, s. 1; 1969, c. 546, s. 1; cc. 735, 754; 1973, c. 476, s. 138; 1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1219, s. 19; 1981, c. 275, s. 1; c. 419, s. 4; 1993, c. 539, ss. 819, 820; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1997‑443, ss. 11A.118(a), 12.12.)
No Trust in Anonymous
Sorry
Sorry, but this statute relates to County Social Services Departments. It doesn't apply. I'm sure a search of the NC General Statutes would come up with quite a few confidentiality issues and/or exemptions from the NC Public Records law, but what does that prove?
I can think of other instances where the public has a right to know who is filing complaints with the town inspections/zoning departments. I just don't see that NC law allows for keeping such information secret.
Recall that everyone wanted to know who filed a complaint about the taco trucks (answer = it was an anonymous voicemail). In fact, I got a lot of email and phone calls from people who wanted to know whether NC law really allows for an anonymous complaint - that is to say, the complete opposite point of view was generally being espoused (including by some OP users).
Relax
did I miss something?
Well, I am only REQUIRED to
Well, I am only REQUIRED to provide the emails upon request, so I was not really violating the law by not providing them, because the press had not requested them until recently.
Dear sycophant,
Have you ever tried to access the correspondence of local elected officials? If so, was it easy to find what you wanted quickly and efficiently? Did you even know what to look for and where? If you haven't tried, was it because it was too damn much hassle?
This is a free system that costs taxpayers nothing (except privacy that we didn't legally have before) and gives us a lot. The old system is broke.
need "contact us" disclaimer, perhaps
However, what's also at issue here is what happens when that "sun" shines on private citizens' communications to their representatives. I think it comes as a surprise to many to learn that what they've written to an elected official is not only part of an official record but also part of so public a record that it can appear in the media.
Even though I already knew that (in theory), I still was brought up short when something I'd written to a CH Town Council member was quoted months later in a newspaper article -- in much edited form and in a changed context. I can't say I can think of a great way to control for negative repercussions from contacting an elected official, be it inadvertant release of identifying information or backlash from a whistle-blowing complaint. And for better and worse, the press will do what the press will do.
However, it might well be worth a notation on government "contact us" web pages saying that all letters and emails to officials become part of the public record. That might well have a chilling effect, but of course constituents still have other options, including phone and personal conversation.
Putting public records online
Gets real complicated real fast.
I'm all for transparency when appropriate.
But there are lots of records received by government that are rightly non-public.
There are also reasons why you might not want to use Google to store/present government information.
Technological concerns aside, I'd start by giving David Lawrence or someone else knowledgeable about the Public Records Law a call.