Should We Respect the Ideas in Public Records, No Matter How Silly They Are?
We might be playing a dangerous game here. After all, the notes were released to PEER thanks to Florida's strong public-records laws, which more often than not are the lifeblood of organizations like ours looking to see how government functions. Calling out an official for lying or unveiling a coverup is one thing. But when public records are obtained, then publicized, just to make the people generating and providing them look silly?
Well, if some asshat politician tries to trim back public records availability, he might well use behavior like ours as an excuse.
Let's establish some givens: As newspaper-type people, we believe in the free transfer of information, the transparency and accountability of government agencies, and the First Amendment right to spout off whatever vitriolic sass we see fit when outraged, perplexed, or miffed by the ridiculous stuff that happens in Florida government.
But over the weekend, I was wondering if just getting information, especially half-baked ideas in the form of notes, and flouncing it around as stupidity goes too far. We all write stupid things in our notebooks. Mine, for example, is oven riddled with little observances and notes to self that I jot down during interviews and would not exactly lobby for any other breathing human to see, ever. Public officials, tasked with putting together complicated ideas and managing not only narratives but millions of actual people, need to take notes too. And thanks to Florida State Statutes section 119, those notes are open to you and me.
So are the minutes-like notes taken by a DEP official at that meeting in which officials discussed building wood-pellet factories in Florida's forests and exporting the product to other countries, to beat out competitors like Georgia. Or moving state offices into state parks (the least bad of the ideas). Or selling state land to other countries? Germany, maybe?
The commentary accompanying the notes was clearly an effort to record off-the-cuff conversations among those present. DEP spokesperson Jennifer Diaz stresses this in her response to the Pulp:
The aim of the strategic planning session was to bring ideas to the table for discussion and review all aspects of the idea to see if it would be a viable option for DEP. Ideas discussed at the planning session were not "schemes" as PEER described, but an exercise to encourage staff to think of ways we can better protect our environment.
Jerry Phillips, the Florida field director of PEER and a former DEP lawyer, says he got the records after researching developments in DEP's enforcement strategies, which his organization tracks. He ran across a memo referring to the above-mentioned planning session and decided to file a public-records request for notes from that meeting. He got three sets of notes, one of which contained the ideas in question. Phillips' group serves as a watchdog and advocacy organization, and it's natural that it would take a stand by framing those records however it wants.
But for news outlets, that's the conundrum. Public records are an easy, legally protected source of outlandish stuff that could well forebode a dangerous direction for our state's resources. On the other hand, if officials know that everything they write down might be made the subject of a one-way abuse train driven by us sarcastic bloggers, they might do the unthinkable and stop taking as many notes or stop providing them.
Of course, making state agencies uncomfortable can't be all bad. Especially when they want to go into the wood-pellet business and hold a fire sale of state-owned lands. That's stuff people should know about, no matter how casually it's jotted down.
Stefan Kamph: Follow on Twitter |
The Pulp on Twitter | New Times on Facebook