Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Open records sponsor says she'll keep on trying

Open records sponsor says she'll keep on trying

Mar 15 2008 10:38PM

Associated Press

(Newsrooms: Sunshine Week is an initiative spearheaded by media organizations. Sunshine Week 2008 marks the fourth year of the national effort to initiate a public dialogue in the United States about the people's right to know. In this story, Associated Press Writer Chet Brokaw reports on the status of open records in South Dakota.) PIERRE, S.D. (AP) A measure that sought to open more government records to the public was defeated after an intense battle in this year's South Dakota legislative session, but the chief sponsor says the debate likely will continue in future sessions.

 
 

State Senator Nancy Turbak Berry of Watertown says she'll keep working at it.

 
 

Her legislation would have changed state law to presume that state and local government documents are open to the public. It passed the state Senate but died in a House committee. One study says the other 49 states already have laws that include some kind of presumption of openness for government documents.

 
 

Turbak Berry says some government officials seem to act as if government documents belong to them rather than to the public.

 
 

But Governor Rounds and some Republican legislators opposed the bill, arguing it could lead to the disclosure of private information about people. Rounds says he's on the side of protecting people's private information.

 
 

House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center says he thinks the news media might see things differently than the people do. In his words: "I would hope in the future there is more of an interest in solving the problem rather than just possibly pandering to the press," end quote.

 
 

By AP Writer Chet Brokaw (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) APNP 03-15-08 2230CDT

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.kxmb.com/printArticle.asp?ViewPrintable=True&ArticleId=219571>

Open government empowers the people

Open government empowers the people

A Havelock News editorial

March 25, 2008 - 4:31PM

You don't need a psychology degree to realize that people behave differently when they know someone is watching. So when government officials know the public is keeping its eyes on them, it creates a powerful incentive to behave responsibly and ethically.

The key word there is powerful, a term that reflects the importance of open government. Laws that require people in positions of official authority to conduct the public's business openly provide a check on government power. These laws generate records and documents and make them available for inspection. They restrict the ability to meet behind closed doors. They eliminate hiding places where activities might otherwise go on unmonitored.

In short, the power that these laws deny to the government flows to the people. All that remains is for the people to use it. And when they do, interesting things can happen:

In 1972, a case stemming from a Freedom of Information Act request resulted in the IRS releasing a 40,000-page manual on auditing procedures.

Eight years ago, another FOIA case led to the FBI making 35,000 pages of information about its crime lab available on the Internet.

In both examples, power flowed from the government to the people in the form of information. And in each case, government officials got a reminder - every now and then, scrutiny catches up with secrecy.

It's "Sunshine Month," a time when newspapers and other media outlets are putting emphasis on the people's right to know. You may hear many arguments for keeping government accessible and transparent, but for now remember the one we've talked about today. The cause of open government not only champions the people, it also empowers them.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.havenews.com/common/printer/view.php?db=havelock&id=3863>

Sunshine Week: Cherish, protect your right to know - El Paso Times

Sunshine Week: Cherish, protect your right to know

El Paso Times Staff

Article Launched: 03/17/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

A s the nation observes Sunshine Week, it's good to remember that freedom of information and the right of people to know what's going on in their government extends beyond the journalism community.

You have a right to know what goes on at City Council and County Commissioners Court, in the House and Senate and governor's office in Austin, in House and Senate sessions in Washington and in the Oval Office -- and beyond purely public sessions.

Why did your congressmen, Democrats Silvestre Reyes and Ciro Rodriguez, vote to raise your taxes by $683 billion over the next five years? Why did one Texas GOP senator, John Cornyn, vote for a moratorium on pork-barrel spending, or earmarking, while Texas' other GOP senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted against that moratorium on wasteful, provincial spending of your tax money?

Sunshine Week encourages the public to take a more-active role in their government. Having the public more and more involved in government is a powerful and important check on matters that range from pork-barreling to public corruption.

Freedom of information is important to journalists because it's a tool used to gather information that helps to keep the public informed. And government, understandably, doesn't like to relinquish information because information is power and government prefers that power stays within its control.

A recent example is the case of Toni Locy, who as a reporter for USA Today reported on the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton demanded that Locy provide names of all Justice Department and FBI sources for her stories and if she refused, Walton's penalty was that starting at midnight last Tuesday, Locy would have to pay -- out of personal funds -- $500 a day for seven days, then $1,000 a day for seven days, then $5,000 a day until she appeared in court April 3.

After that, the judge could have ordered further fines or jail time for any continued refusal to disclose her sources.

Fortunately, this heavy-handed perversion of justice was overturned by an appeals court, but it clearly demonstrates the lengths to which government will go to protect information.

If reporters can be forced, through threat, fine or imprisonment, to reveal confidential sources, those sources will dry up. They don't want the inevitable reprisals. Then that information won't be available and the government will be able to keep more and more of its activities hidden and thus be able to get away with more and more.

Freedom of information is hugely important in the system of checks and balances necessary to keep a rein on government.

To that end, Cornyn and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have introduced a new effort to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act.

"It was encouraging to see Congress take major steps recently to expand the American people's right to government information," Cornyn said.

"This latest bill is an effort to further enhance government transparency and accountability. Sunshine Week is an opportunity to highlight these important principles of our founding fathers -- a truly self-governing society depends on an informed citizenry."

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_8596010>

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

ATLANTIC JOURNALISM AWARDS /CNW workshops announced

AJAs/CNW workshops announced

HALIFAX, March 25 /CNW/ - The Atlantic Journalism Awards (AJAs), in
conjunction with CNW Group, has announced a series of professional development
workshops for journalists and others to be held during the day on Saturday,
May 3, as part of the AJAs annual celebration of journalistic excellence. The
workshops will be hosted at the new Nova Scotia Community College Waterfront
campus in Dartmouth, NS.
The 9 am morning workshops include; Pounding It Out with Panache, a
writing workshop presented by Rob Russo and Kevin Ward of the Canadian Press;
and
The Multimedia Journalist with Jeff Harper, photographer with The
Chronicle Herald. An all morning workshop, Critical Thinking, will be
presented by Renée Pellerin of CBC. Another morning session is Watch What You
Say and Write with Dean Jobb of the University of King's College, School of
Journalism.
The 2 pm session consists of a panel discussion with audience
participation on the topic Freedom of Information legislations. Moderated by
former broadcaster Yvonne Colbert, the panel consists of Darce Fardy,
President of Right to Know Coalition of NS; Peter Haggert, Editor, The Daily
Gleaner, Fredericton; Doug Keefe, Retired Deputy Minister, NS Department of
Justice; Jacques Poitras, CBC Fredericton; and Linden MacIntyre, the fifth
estate, CBC Toronto. There is no charge for the afternoon session, and
registration is not required. It is open to anyone wishing to attend.
A networking lunch will be held at the Community College after the
morning workshops, followed by a tour of the College's new broadcast studios
and facilities. Transportation to and from the NSCC Waterfront campus in
Dartmouth will be provided from the Halifax Marriott Harbourfront Hotel, plus
there is plenty of parking at the College.
The registration fee includes lunch and the facilities tour. Morning
workshop participants will also be presented with a certificate of completion
suitable for framing.
In announcing the workshops Bill Skerrett, Executive Director of the
AJAs, thanked the Canadian Press, plus photographer Jeff Harper, and all the
experts on the afternoon panel for contributing their time and effort for the
workshops. CNW Group regional Vice-President, Janet Gallant, also expressed
her appreciation to CBC and Dean Jobb for their efforts to make the series a
success.
Details and registration information for the morning workshops and
afternoon FOI panel can be found at either
www.AJAs.ca, click on Workshops, or
go to,
http://www.newswire.ca/en/extras/custom/bmail_079_workshop/

For further information: Bill Skerrett, office@AJAs.ca, (902) 435-9166

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2008/25/c6717.html>



Mounties censoring Taser reports - The Chronicle Herald

Key details being zapped from study

By JIM BRONSKILL and SUE BAILEY The Canadian Press

Tue. Mar 25 - 5:33 AM


STUNNING:

TASER FIRINGS

2001: 2; 2002: 84; 2003: 559; 2004: 240; 2005: 597; 2006: 1,119; 2007: 1,414

2007 REPORTS

Newfoundland and Labrador: 24

Nova Scotia: 53

Prince Edward Island: 16

New Brunswick: 81

Quebec: 0

Ontario (including Ottawa HQ): 2

Manitoba: 129

Saskatchewan: 108

Alberta: 371

British Columbia: 496

Yukon: 36

Northwest Territories: 53

Nunavut: 45

(Note: The RCMP does minimal front-line policing in Ontario and Quebec.)

Source: RCMP


OTTAWA — The RCMP is stripping crucial details about Taser firings from public reports as use of the controversial stun guns skyrockets across the country.

A joint investigation by The Canadian Press and CBC found the Mounties are now refusing to divulge key information that must be recorded each time they draw their electronic weapons.

As a result, Canadians will know much less about who is being hit with the 50,000-volt guns, whether they were armed, why they were fired on and whether they were injured.

Taser report forms obtained under the Access to Information Act show the Mounties have used the powerful weapons more than 4,000 times since introducing them seven years ago.

Incidents have increased dramatically, topping 1,000 annually in each of the last two years compared with about 600 in 2005. The overwhelming majority of firings took place in Western Canada, where the national force often leads front-line policing.

As Taser use escalates, however, the RCMP has tightened the lid of secrecy.

Information stripped from the forms includes details of several Taser cases the Mounties previously made public under the access law. In effect, the RCMP are reclassifying details of Taser use — including some telling facts that raised pointed questions about how often the stun guns are fired and why.

A Canadian Press analysis last November of 563 incidents from 2002 to 2005 found three in four suspects Tasered by the RCMP were unarmed. Several of those reports suggested a pattern of stun-gun use as a handy tool to keep drunk or rowdy suspects in line, rather than to defuse major threats.

But the Mounties are now censoring Taser report forms to conceal related injuries, duration of shocks, whether the individual was armed, what police tried before resorting to the stun gun, and precise dates of firings.

In fact, Canadians now know more about the Tasering of dogs than humans. One of the most detailed new reports describes how a pooch named Princess was zapped with a stun gun in Maple Ridge, B.C., as five officers carried out a search warrant.

Princess was not given the standard warning: "Police! Stop or you will be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity!"

There was little point, the report goes on to note: "Subject would not have understood the command, as subject was a dog."

The RCMP cites the need to protect privacy and continuing investigations to justify why it removed such basic details from other reports.

Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh scoffed at the explanation.

"That's hogwash. That's absolute nonsense," the former attorney general for British Columbia said in an interview. "Whether or not someone was armed . . . how does that violate privacy?"

Dosanjh noted that names and addresses are already removed from the forms.

"The RCMP is a public police force. They are accountable to Canadians.

"They have to provide that information so that people can judge for themselves whether or not their police force is acting appropriately."

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was travelling Monday and was not immediately available for comment.

Insp. Troy Lightfoot, who helps oversee RCMP Taser use, would not speculate on why the reporting changes were made. But he stressed there are still ways to monitor stun guns and other uses of force.

"I can tell you that there are many accountability systems in place with regards to police actions. You have the courts, you have coroners' inquests, you have a multitude of oversight bodies," he said. "There is a complaints process that can be followed."

Paul Kennedy, head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, said the decision to withhold details of Taser firings amounts to a self-defeating lack of transparency that bucks widespread calls for more — not less — public reporting.

"There seems to be something that is touching a chord with Canadians when they see the Taser.

"Now, it may be because the person is just reduced to a squirming ball of flesh on the ground, that it seems to be used against men and women, it is used against young people, it is used against old people. There is the issue as to whether or not deaths are associated with it."

The RCMP should be making public as much Taser data as possible, Kennedy said.

"There is nothing more important to the police than maintaining and restoring public confidence. How do you do that? You do that by getting your story out."

Stun guns have swiftly become the go-to weapon for scores of police and correctional officers across Canada. The RCMP have more than 2,800 Tasers, and some 9,100 Mounties are trained to use them.

They can be fired from a distance, laying suspects low with high-voltage bursts that override the central nervous system. They can also be used up close in touch-stun mode, which has been likened to leaning on a hot stove.

The potent devices are hugely popular with officers who say they're a safer, more efficient option than pepper spray or batons. But a rash of recent headlines has raised questions about the extent to which painful Taser jolts are used much like cattle prods on unarmed, non-violent suspects.

RCMP reports previously released to The Canadian Press also detailed several head injuries when suspects struck the floor, along with burns caused by stuns and lacerations from sharp Taser probes.

Public wariness about the weapons turned to full-blown anger last fall when amateur video showing the death of Robert Dziekanski was released. RCMP were called last October when the Polish immigrant became agitated at Vancouver International Airport after spending hours in a secure section while his mother tried in vain to contact him from the public side.

Although Dziekanski appears more confused than threatening on the video, the officers waited less than 30 seconds before they zapped the 40-year-old with a Taser and pinned him to the floor as he wailed in pain. Within minutes, he was dead.

It took 15 months and an official complaint before the RCMP would release thousands of pages recording more than 4,000 Taser incidents.

In Nova Scotia, two people have died after being shocked with a stun gun while in police custody.

Last November, Howard Hyde, a 45-year-old schizophrenic from Dartmouth, died about 30 hours after Halifax Regional Police subdued him with a Taser, the brand of stun gun used in Nova Scotia.

A provincial Justice Department report said there was no "causal connection" between Taser use and Hyde's death.

The medical examiner's office is investigating his death.

In 2005, Paul Saulnier, 42, died while in RCMP custody in Digby.

Saulnier had suffered from mental illness for about four years.

He was facing charges relating to a domestic dispute involving harassment.

On the day of his arrest, officers tried to keep him from leaving the Digby detachment by using pepper spray, batons and a Taser.

He died on the ground outside the detachment.

In the wake of recent publicity about police use of Tasers across the province, new statistics show RCMP officers drew those weapons 132 times between 2005 and 2007.

Earlier this month, RCMP Sgt. Mark Gallagher said the figures show that in 85 per cent of those cases, police were dealing with a person who was either drunk or high on drugs.

In 40 per cent of cases, the person was armed.

There are stark differences between the newly released forms and earlier versions filed about the same confrontations.

For example, the original report on a March 7, 2004, case in northern Manitoba revealed that an unarmed detainee in a Pukatawagan RCMP cell was Tasered after only oral intervention. There was no attempt to subdue the inmate through physical force before the officer warned: "Let me introduce you to the Taser. It is able to produce 50,000 volts of electricity. Co-operate with us and you will not be stunned."

The new form says only that the confrontation occurred in 2004, with no precise date. The section entitled Weapons Carried or Immediately Available by Subject is blank.

And there is no longer any description of verbal commands or other police response before the Taser was fired.

"It certainly isn't helpful to be in the midst of greater debate with less and less information," says Hilary Homes of Amnesty International Canada. "In general, it's a problem across Canada that we don't have the same accountability system throughout the many forces that use the Taser."

Amnesty International wants the devices suspended pending an independent, comprehensive study of risks and benefits.

Dziekanski was recorded as the 18th person in Canada to die after being hit by a Taser since police started carrying them in 2001. The tally has since risen to 19. Amnesty says at least 280 people have died in the United States following a Taser zap in the last seven years.

Arizona-based manufacturer Taser International stresses the device has never been directly blamed for a death. It has, however, been cited repeatedly as a contributing factor.

Kennedy referred to "usage creep" in an interim report on Tasers last December that urged the Mounties to drastically restrict reliance on the stun guns. The weapons should only be used in touch-stun or full firing mode when suspects are "combative" or pose a risk of "death or grievous bodily harm," he said.

Lightfoot, however, said the cases he has recently analyzed indicate the Taser was used acceptably. "It is an appropriate device for law enforcement use, and it does enhance police and public safety. And it is one of the least injurious means that we have available to take people into police custody."

Kennedy devoted a whole section of his report to the need for more and better documentation of Taser use. He recommended the RCMP produce quarterly and annual reports detailing the number and nature of firings, how often medical care was needed, and the number of Mounties and instructors who passed or failed related training.

Lightfoot said the force plans to produce regular reports on Taser use, but could not say whether they would be made public.

Britain's Home Office publishes statistics quarterly on Taser firings in England and Wales, citing a need for a "rigorous and measured approach" to introducing the weapons in the United Kingdom.

Dosanjh says revelations of an RCMP clampdown on Taser data are another blow to the national police force's battered reputation.

It comes as the federal government moves to overhaul an iconic institution that has seen more than its share of major gaffes in recent years — from the Maher Arar torture affair to claims by rank-and-file Mounties of high-level meddling in RCMP pension and insurance plans.

"I'm actually embarrassed," said Dosanjh. "I dealt with the RCMP . . . in British Columbia when I was the attorney general. I was proud of that. But the more I look at how they function, the more I see the lack of transparency and accountability, I am flabbergasted.

"I don't know whether the red serge is anymore a symbol that we should be so proud of."

With Amy Pugsley Fraser, staff reporter


Inserted from <http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1045520.html>


Thursday, March 20, 2008

U. King's - Events: 2008 Brian Flemming Lecture Series - William Dalrymple (Mar 28)

William Dalrymple To Visit King's

Date: March 28, 2008

The University of King's College is pleased to present a public talk by its 2008 Brian Flemming Lecture Series speaker: award-winning British writer and historian William Dalrymple (www.williamdalrymple.uk.com). He will speak on his latest book The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857 on Friday, March 28 at 7:30 pm in Alumni Hall (New Academic Building, 6350 Coburg Road). All are welcome and free tickets (limit two) are available from the King's Advancement Office at (902) 422-1271, ext. 128 or paula.johnson@ukings.ns.ca.

In February 2007, Dalrymple was awarded the Duff Cooper Memorial Prize for History and Biography for his sixth book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857 (2006), which made use of "The Mutiny Papers" – a series of previously ignored Indian accounts of the 1857 rebellion against the British East India Company.

"William Dalrymple's captivating book is not only great reading, it contributes very substantially to our understanding of the remarkable history of the Mughal Empire in its dying days," says 1998 Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. "It is rare indeed that a work of such consummate scholarship and insight could also be so accessible and such fun to read."

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.ukings.ca/kings_3438_14592.html>

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

More People See Federal Government as Secretive; Nearly All Want to Know Where Candidates Stand on Transparency - Sunshine Week Survey 2008

Sunshine Week Survey 2008

Published: March 15, 2008

Last Updated: March 15, 2008

Contacts:

For Sunshine Week:

Debra Gersh Hernandez

dghernandez@asne.org

703-807-2100

mobile: 571-238-1499

For Scripps Howard News Service:

Thomas Hargrove

hargrovet@shns.com

202-408-2703

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: Sunday, March 16, 2008

Note to editors: Graphics for this survey and other FOI issues are available from McClatchy-Tribune Graphics for use by clients and non-clients during Sunshine Week.

 
 

More People See Federal Government as Secretive;

Nearly All Want to Know Where Candidates Stand on Transparency

Washington — Three-quarters of American adults view the federal government as secretive, and nearly nine in 10 say it's important to know presidential and congressional candidates' positions on open government when deciding who to vote for, according to a Sunshine Week survey by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.

The survey shows a significant increase over the past three years in the percentage of Americans who believe the federal government is very or somewhat secretive, from 62 percent of those surveyed in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008.

"In a democracy whose survival depends on openness, it's sobering to see that three-fourths of Americans now view their national government as somewhat or very secretive," said David Westphal, Washington editor for McClatchy Newspapers and co-chairman of the American Society of Newspaper Editors Freedom of Information Committee. "On the other hand, it's gratifying to see that almost 90 percent believe a candidate's position on open government is an important issue when they make their Election Day choices."

The survey of 1,012 adults was commissioned by ASNE for Sunshine Week, a national initiative that encourages discussions about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Sunshine Week's 2008 Sunshine Campaign is a yearlong effort to have candidates for all level of office — from president to city council — discuss their positions on government access issues.

Half of respondents said government at the state level is secretive, while 44 percent viewed it as open. Nearly all interviewed, 92 percent, said open government is important to them in assessing candidates for state offices such as governor or attorney general. Those who see local government as secretive increased from 34 percent in 2007 to 40 percent in the 2008 survey. And 91 percent said the local candidate's position and record on open government are important to them in making a voting decision.

People also overwhelmingly want access to information such as who lawmakers meet with each day (82 percent), police reports about specific crimes in local neighborhoods (71 percent), and permits for concealed handguns (66 percent). About half said they do not object to officials asking people seeking records to identify themselves or explain why they'd like to see the record.

Although only about a quarter of adults believe the federal government has opened their mail or monitored their telephone conversations without a federal warrant, three-quarters believe it has happened to people in the United States and two-thirds say it is very or somewhat likely to have happened to members of the news media.

The survey was conducted by telephone from Feb. 10-28 under the supervision of Robert Owens, operations manager of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University. The co-directors of the center are Jerry Miller and Ani Ruhil. Guido H. Stempel III, distinguished professor emeritus at Ohio University, also assisted the project.

The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Sunshine Week, www.sunshineweek.org, is a non-partisan open government initiative led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, www.asne.org, with online and broadcast media, public officials, celebrities, civic groups, non-profits, libraries, schools, religious leaders and others. Sunshine Week is endowed through a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, www.knightfdn.org, which invests in journalism excellence worldwide and the vitality of the 26 communities where the Knight brothers owned newspapers. It focuses on projects with the potential to create transformational change.

**********

The following are selected findings from a survey of 1,012 adult residents of the United States conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University in a study commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors for Sunshine Week.

Here are some questions about whether you feel government in America is open and transparent or whether you think government is closed and secretive. When talking about the local government in your community, do you think local government is very open, somewhat open, somewhat secretive or very secretive?

Very Open

16

Somewhat Open

40

Somewhat Secretive

26

Very Secretive

14

Don't Know/Other

4

How about your state government? Is it is very open, somewhat open, somewhat secretive or very secretive?

Very Open

10

Somewhat Open

40

Somewhat Secretive

30

Very Secretive

14

Don't Know/Other

6

How about the federal government based in Washington, D.C.?

Very Open

4

Somewhat Open

16

Somewhat Secretive

30

Very Secretive

44

Don't Kknow/Other

6

How likely do you think it is that the federal government has opened mail or monitored telephone conversations of people in the U.S. without first getting permission from a federal judge? Is it very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely that the federal government has done these things without permission from a judge?

Very Likely

48

Somewhat Likely

29

Somewhat Unlikely

7

Very Unlikely

9

Don't Know/Other

7

How likely do you think it is that the federal government has opened your mail or monitored some of your telephone conversations?

Very Likely

11

Somewhat Likely

15

Somewhat Unlikely

17

Very Unlikely

47

Don't Kknow/Other

10

How likely it is that the federal government has opened mail or monitored telephone conversations involving members of the news media?

Very Likely

38

Somewhat Likely

26

Somewhat Unlikely

9

Very Unlikely

12

Don't know/Other

15

How important to you is a candidate's position on open government when you decide whom to vote for? So when you are voting for president, is a candidate's position on open government very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant or very unimportant to you?

Very Important

60

Somewhat Important

27

Somewhat Unimportant

6

Very Unimportant

4

Don't Know/Other

3

How about when voting for a member of Congress. Is open government very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant or very unimportant to you?

Very Important

60

Somewhat Important

28

Somewhat Unimportant

4

Very Unimportant

2

Don't Know/Other

6

How about when voting for a candidate for state office like governor or attorney general?

Very Important

64

Somewhat Important

28

Somewhat Unimportant

4

Very Unimportant

3

Don't know/Other

1

How about when voting for your city council or school board?

Very Important

69

Somewhat Important

22

Somewhat Unimportant

3

Very Unimportant

3

Don't Know/Other

3

Government records usually are considered public documents that people may view during normal business hours. Which of the following should be the government's policy when releasing government documents: First, that people should be required to show identification and give a written reason for seeing the documents? Or second, that people should be required to speak their names and say why they want to see the documents? Or third, that they should speak their names but not be required to give a reason why they want to see the documents? Or fourth, that they should give a reason but not give their names? Or fifth, that they should not be asked either their names or why they want to see the records?

Show ID and give written reason

36

Speak name and explain why

15

Speak name but not reason

12

Give reason but not give name

6

Should not give name or reason

22

Don't know/Other

9

Lawmakers at the local, state, and federal levels meet with a lot of different people over the course of a day such as lobbyists, voters, other government officials and campaign donors. They usually keep lists of those visitors. Do you think the public should be allowed to see with whom lawmakers meet?

Yes

82

No

11

Don't Know/Other

7

Just as with the question about access to public records, if people are allowed to see a lawmaker's list of visitors, should people have to identify themselves and state reasons why they want to see the lists?

Show ID and give written reason

42

Speak name and explain why

13

Speak name but not reason

9

Give reason but not give name

4

Should not give name or reason

26

Don't know/Other

6

I'd like to ask some questions about whether governments should release information to the public. For example, should a city police department allow the public to see incident reports about specific crimes in local neighborhoods?

Yes

71

No

15

Don't know/Other

14

Some states allow people to carry concealed handguns if they get a permit. Should state governments allow the public to see who has been given permits to carry concealed handguns?

Yes

66

No

25

Don't know/Other

9

Source: National survey of 1,012 adult residents of the United States conducted by Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University from Feb. 10-28.

**********

The perception that the federal government often operates in secrecy has grown significantly in recent years, according to a series of polls conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.

Here are some questions about whether you feel government in America is open and transparent or whether you think government is closed and secretive. When talking about the federal government based in Washington, D.C, is it very open, somewhat open, somewhat secretive or very secretive?

  

2006

2007

2008

Very Open

5

7

4

Somewhat Open

28

18

16

Somewhat Secretive

40

32

30

Very Secretive

22

37

44

Don't Know/Other

5

6

6

Source: Three polls of at least 1,000 adult residents of the United States each interviewed by telephone by the Scripps Survey Research Center.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/secrecypoll08>