Public Records Officer for Clallam County?
Because of the increasing number of public records requests, Clallam County officials might hire a dedicated public records officer. The main question is how they will get the funding to pay for this position.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols said: “In short, we feel that based upon the ever-increasing number and complexity of public records requests that have been made to Clallam County and its several departments that the time has come to fund such a position. Ultimately, we feel this will help the agency comply with the update of the Public Records Act, and further, it will fill a need and allow us to more efficiently respond to what has become an ever popular public service that is being requested.”
Clallam County receives about a thousand public records requests per year.
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols said: “In short, we feel that based upon the ever-increasing number and complexity of public records requests that have been made to Clallam County and its several departments that the time has come to fund such a position. Ultimately, we feel this will help the agency comply with the update of the Public Records Act, and further, it will fill a need and allow us to more efficiently respond to what has become an ever popular public service that is being requested.”
Clallam County receives about a thousand public records requests per year.
posted by Tom Harper at 2:58 PM
19 Comments:
I wonder how much of this reflects the trust people have in their representatives?
Why not just automate it like millions of other state, county and cities do? It is relatively easy and in the long run way cheaper.
Our city is run by backwards hayseeds.
Automate it? Is that what you do with them there fancy computer things kids are using these days?
PA said...
"Why not just automate it like millions of other state, county and cities do? It is relatively easy and in the long run way cheaper. Our city is run by backwards hayseeds."
Did you read the article? Have you even casually looked at the Law? The issue is not letting somebody look at public records, that is easy. The issue here is dealing with people who are on "fishing" expeditions. People who ask for "all documents over the last 10 years with any of the following words in them: "City", "Bridge", "Elwha", "Dams", "Grant"." Not ALL of the words, mind you, ANY of the words. So, somebody, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, has to research all letters, all files, all E-Mails, all resolutions, all billing notices, etc., etc., for the past 10 years, make copies of these documents, review each document for information that MUST NOT be disclosed ( like bank record numbers, soc sec numbers, childrens names, records covered by Attny/Client priviledge,then inform the requestor that they are ready to be viewed, sit there while these documents are inspected and charge them .15 cents each (but for ONLY the ones they want to take with them). At this time, this kind of request cannot possibly be automated. The ones that can, where somebody wants to see any "official documents", dealt with by the Council, ARE automated, ARE on the website, and don't take any time at all.
but still, it's near impossible to get into the law library.....
dedicated public records officer.
Hum, would a dedicated public records officer be able to make more money than just a dedicated public records clerk just because of the title?
If all records are online, why the need? Those wanting to see them can spend their own damn time looking for them instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.
If they expect a clerk to do it for them they can just damn well pay extra for said service.
Most folks don't use that service very often, those that are always using it should be paying for the extra service.
"The issue here is dealing with people who are on "fishing" expeditions. People who ask for "all documents over the last 10 years..."
Yes, this is true. "Open Government" and " Democracy" has a price that Dictatorships don't have to worry about.
If you never have to worry that your elected representatives are involved in suspicious, self serving behaviours, then there are very few requests for records.
But here in Port Angeles, with it's well documented history of elected officials combining their personal business activities with representing the "public", people get suspicious, and ask for records.
One example of this is the appearant conflict of Karen Rogers Consulting (a link right here on the right side column of this blog), and her role as Mayor and council person voting on city contracts her consulting clients seem to be benefiting by. I know more than a couple people who have been disturbed by this seeming conflict, and who have requested numerous documents from the city to look into the realities. They are concerned because they care about the welfare of the community they live in.
My point is not to point fingers, but to show that it is these types of seemingly inappropriate conduct by elected officials that results in the legitimate concerns expressed by members of the public in the form of records requests.
Consider the alternative, when the public is not allowed to question their elected representatives' questionable activities.
So lets talk about public records and disclosure and transparency. Shouldn't that be a two way street?
Why not just record the names and addresses (proof of ID required) of those requesting said records so the rest of us can see who they are?
Can't these guys do anything but be puppets? They act as if we are complete idiots, and then wonder why we get pissed off!
I read Jeff Lincolns' comments in the Weds. PDN. He says our voices have not been heard. Really? After all these years of saying that place is a waste of time? He sure didn't mind accepting the job. And now he says HE is frustrated?
He says Ecology is saying they want to delay this for three more years. From what I read, it is Rayonier that is making this drag out, like they have been for years now. They find ways, and have their lawyers create reasons to make the clean up not happen. Year after year. Anyone can see this.
Clearly, the city is not in control of the clean up. Why do they think that Harborworks is in control? This article shows nothing has changed.
maybe a few of the lazy government workers should get a fire lit under their butts, and take turns fulfilling records requests. We don't need another person! Government is big enough, and there is so much dead wood and people sit around, and pretend to work.
"Yes, this is true. "Open Government" and " Democracy" has a price that Dictatorships don't have to worry about."
This is very true. Our Governments MUST be open and transparent! The difficulty is that the law does not allow any discression between "Fishing expeditions" that are actually trying to uncover possible wrong-doing and requests that are generated solely for the purpose of "bringing government to a halt". I hear the County is dealing with one right now that the requestor actually said he wanted to "punish" District Court because he was mad at how much he had to pay for a ticket, so he is requesting more than 300, separate, public records requests, that will take hundreds of hours to research and generate, costing them much more in time than they got paid from the ticket. How is that beneficial to all the other taxpayers who actually need core government services?
The law should be changed to keep legitimate requests on the front burner, a high priority, while the frivolous requests (for no other reason than to obstruct government) should be allowed to have a Judge throw them out. Another possibility would be to allow governments to charge for the actual time it takes to research and produce the documents. We can't have a few anti-government folks prevent the rest of us from receiving essential services.
We can't have a few anti-government folks prevent the rest of us from receiving essential services.
I'm anti-government, as it currently works anyway. But I'm not opposed to the rest of you receiving essential services.
I've used that service myself, but just once in the eleven years I've been here.
"The law should be changed to keep legitimate requests on the front burner, a high priority, while the frivolous requests (for no other reason than to obstruct government) should be allowed to have a Judge throw them out."
Interesting idea. So, how much will it cost the taxpayers to have these requests ruled upon by a judge? Would there have to be attorneys involved, to explain and defend the records requests? A court calendar? A clerk to record, schedule, and administer the hearings and rulings?
What will be the criteria for these rulings? Will they be subject to "politics", where folks like Karen Rogers could block legitimate records requests because they have a political agenda at stake?
Again, I think "democracy" has a price that goes with it. A lot like "freedom", where as we see these days, freedoms are given up in the name of "security", although the root causes are never addressed, we are not more "secure", and all we have done is to lose our freedoms.
Well, it sounds to me like they should skip the public records officer and instead hire someone to scan in and convert old documents. While that's happening, work on setting up a database for it all. They'll have to suffer with all these requests for awhile, but when the project's done they'll have an easily searchable database that Mr. "Punish the County and Therefore the Taxpayers" can search from at home. In his underwear. With Fritos in his navel.
Mmm. You know, I really like Fritos. But not when they've been in some dude's navel.
The identities of record requesters are not exempt from public disclosure. So, I propose that government agencies routinely post on their web sites copies of the actual record requests they receive. That way, the public can get a better understanding of the types of records that citizens are requesting, and who is requesting them.
Another option could be for the newspaper to regularly publish this information. How about it, PDN? Could you routinely submit weekly requests to the cities and counties, asking them for copies of all the record requests they'd received that week? Then publish a summary as a weekly feature in the newspaper. It could be somewhat like publishing the list of people who've applied for marriage licenses ---- but a bit more detailed.
As it stands, we have local governments complaining about having to fulfill what they characterize as "burdensome" record requests, but we don't have any concrete evidence of what the agencies are complaining about.
Besides, I think it would be interesting to compare the number and types of record requests received by the different units of government.
Since leaving office, Larry Williams has been making public records requests of the City of Port Angeles. Off the payroll, but still costing us money...
PDN can't write...they don't think (obviously) and they only publish happy babble. I don't think they have the depth or intelligence to fill out a request form.
fishing expeditions v.s. "legitimate" requests. How should it be decided which is which?
I think we should support all requests being fulfilled, period.
This is a bullshit complaint. There are government workers who crochet all day, and do crossword puzzles, and surf the web. They can't be fired (easily), their unions keep them getting pay raises, and they moan when they get an unpaid extra day or so. Screw them! The rest of us are scratching to make ends meet, and they are trying to figure out how to get more money and do less work. SCREW THEM
Post a Comment
<< Home