Welcome to the Discussion
13 Comments
Post a comment
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Traction Theme by The Theme Foundry
Copyright © 2012 2011 Utah Legislature. All rights reserved.
First, thanks to all those who have taken this task on.
Second, would love to see the group set a goal for completion.
Third, It would be helpful for each committee member to review current GRAMA laws, proposed laws, and come up with specific points of concern and then set a priority list.
Thank you for making it possible to listen via web.
This is a good beginning. Thanks for setting this up. Can you please post Jeff Hunt’s questions? Also, I don’t see where handouts are being scanned in for review. Also, the original GRAMA laws, pre-HB477 would be good to post for a reference.
So far, although there has been some good dialogue, what will that dialogue accomplish? Will Lane Beattie actually require some conclusions? Mr. Beattie stated at the onset that the committee would meet from 4 to 6 weeks. You are a third of the way through with nothing of substance beyond a few more questions. Who sums it up? Will all of you be required to sign off on any final written recommendations? Do you take a vote on specific issues? Yea or nay to an GRAMA Ombudsman? Yea or Nay to fixed costs that apply to all government entities? How specific pieces of legislation – like 2011 HB 475 (lines 19 and 20- ‘authorizes the office to adopt rules relating to the confidentiality of information the office receives’ http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0475.htm ) becomes part of the working group discussion? Has anyone asked Rep Barrus to speak to the Committee? What other pieces of legislation deal with GRAMA laws and has anyone (like John Fellows) been asked to compile all the pieces of legislation that include language like HB475? Certainly existing legislation that has a GRAMA component must reasonably be included in the Committees discussion….however long it takes to compile that list. Certainly, existing GRAMA requirements, County to County must be evaluated for consistency. Is there complete compliance with the current GRAMA laws or does each City and County have some discretionary abilities..what they will or won’t require? Does the State Records Committee have oversight abilities and intervention capacities in each and every City, County and State Agency?
I am enjoying tuning in to the meetings at home. I heard audio of the first 2 meetings, but could not find a way to click on audio only for the third meeting. My computer does not do video well – keeps buffering. Until I figure out what that problem is, Is there a way I can just get audio next time?
Thanks for your help.
Leave Grama alone!
This should be read into the record and be part of the review process.
To all the Utah legislators regarding the GRAMA issue. The US Supreme court has ruled on expectation of privacy by an employee using employers systems and hardware, of any kind. The employer has the right to review all usage of its systems content. The legislators are employees of the State of Utah whether hired on or elected to a position, each are paid by the State.
We the people are the employers of the legislators and we have the right thru the SCOTUS decision and the Utah GRAMA laws to review the contents of emails, texts, video conferences, anything that uses state resources. If a legislator is using his state equipment for personal or his own business that should be reviewable, if he/she does not want that to be subject to review, simply use his/her own money for a personal device and not use state resources.
Additionally Utah law stipulates the state employee has no right of expectation to privacy. Rule R895-7-4. Employee and Management Conduct.
(1) Providing IT resources to an employee does not imply an expectation of privacy. Agency management may:
(a) View, authorize access to, and disclose the contents of electronic files or communications, as required for legal, audit, or legitimate state operational or management purposes;
(b) Monitor the network or email system including the content of electronic messages, including stored files, documents, or communications as are displayed in real-time by employees, when required for state business and within the officially authorized scope of the person’s employment.
(2) An employee may engage in incidental and occasional personal use of IT resources provided that such use does not:
(c) Involve for-profit personal business activity;
(d) Involve actions, which are intended to harm or otherwise disadvantage the state; or
(e) Involve illegal and/or activities prohibited by this rule.
(3) An employee shall:
(a) comply with the Government Records Access and Management Act, as found in Section 63G-2-101 et seq., Utah Code, when transmitting information with state provided IT resources.
(4) While using state provided IT resources, an employee may not:
(c) Distribute offensive, disparaging or harassing statements including those that might incite violence or that are based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or political or religious beliefs;
(e) View, transmit, retrieve, save, print or solicit sexually-oriented messages or images;
(f) Use state-provided IT resources to violate any local, state, or federal law;
(g) Use state-provided IT resources for commercial purposes, product advertisements or “for-profit” personal activity;
(h) Use state-provided IT resources for religious or political functions, including lobbying as defined according to Section 36-11-102, Utah Code, and rule R623-1.
And it is hard line stances like Marco’s that lead to the actions we saw during the last legislative session. Sometimes you squeeze too hard and things slip out of your fingers.
I for one am glad they are working on a compromise. Yes, I believe in open and transparent government, but I also don’t believe that I have a right to know what Sen. Stephenson is having for dinner just because his wife happens to send him a text on his legislative Blackberry.
Good luck to both sides!
Our society believes in both privacy and transparency: two conflicting values.
The fact is that state-owned blackberries should be subject to transparency. The legislators haven’t personally paid for them, nor do they own them. If they want privacy with a constituent or other person, then they should use their own electronic equipment to communicate.
Transparency should rule the public sphere, and privacy the private sphere. State-owned blackberries are publicly owned and, therefore, part of the public sphere. Privately owned equipment is part of the private sphere.
I’m sorry you believe Marco is a hardliner. But the truth is, this represents the belief of the majority of the engaged public.
Representative Noel expressed in the house meeting prior to the Repeal of HB477 his belief that the legislature affords a privilege to the likes of attorney/client privilege. It seemed most others concurred. That the public including business and religious representatives have the right to private conversation with State representatives. The public does not agree. They can have access, but its not private.
The employee’s of the State of Utah, no matter the position, are constantly reminded of the responsibility to the public. That all communications belong to the public and are subject to scrutiny. Our elected officials should be under the same guidelines.
This is not about the public seeing a personal communication between spouses. This is about the legislatures belief they are not accountable to the public. The belief they are an authority to the public once elected and are beyond accountability to them. Hence an open disdain for those requesting access. Hence a special records process just for them. One that gives them complete, control of what the public will see without a right of appeal.
I applaud the work everyone is doing to protect our open records.
Perhaps I should clarify my comments. Because the hypothetical text message comes to a legislative smart phone, that likely means that it is available for public review. Does that mean that I, as an individual, have a constitutional RIGHT to review that information?!
I think there is a fine line there. Even the current GRAMA law says there is a fine line there.
I think the “what’s for dinner” comment that comes to a taxpayer funded phone can be reviewed, but should it be released to the public in general? If it pertains to the senator’s job as an elected official, yes! If it doesn’t? These are the questions that need to be asked.
After speaking with my rep and senator, I think what lead to HB 477 is the complete lack of activists and media reps to even CONSIDER any changes. I was told multiple times invitations were issued and ignored.
Whatever happened, I am glad people are sitting down to hammer this out. I am confident another year of good intentions and no action would have lead to another bill the same or worse than HB 477.
Leave GRAMA alone.
Thanks for all your efforts that you have put in this. very interesting info . “Ridicule is the first and last argument of fools.” by Charles Simmons.
Thanks to everyone who tracked this issue so carefully throughout the GRAMA working group’s brief but intense history. You can find the committee’s final report here:
http://www.gramarevisited.com/final-grama-working-group-report
Comments on this site are now closed. Please contact your senator or representative with further suggestions, feedback or insight.
For now this site will remain at GRAMArevisited.com. At some point in the future – probably after session – we plan to archive it at le.utah.gov.
Thank you!