Let's not rush to judgement...especially for political expediency. Policies don't generally need to be changed "immediately" but in an orderly, well-thought out fashion that results in a better long term policy. Facts should be checked, legal opinions gathered, the public heard and then changes should be made.

First off, any county policy is superceded by the state law which governs it. Medical records are exempted under the Open Records law and protected by federal law.

Secondly, using a Google or Yahoo account offers no legal protection if the e-mails are sent/recieved through a government computer or in a person's capacity as a public official.

The Open Record and Open Meeting act have been very, very good for Tennessee. They have not only increased public access to documents, they have changed the mindset in government because you know everything is at least potentially a public document.

It's easy to cite transient local political issues and talk about problems with the law or policy that need to be changed. We need to tread lightly. Medical records is a black and white issue. Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good.

The true value of open meeting and open records laws, about which I feel very strongly, is that there are as few exemptions as possible.

If you want whistleblowers exempted, set up a whistleblower program and try to set it up in a way that it would be considered a legitimate ongoing criminal investigation...another of the few, but logical, exemptions.

The open meeting and open records laws have served Tennessee well. We are better off for having them in place and as strong as possible.

Cohen: "Whistleblower could give those holding the documents way too much wiggle room and could, theoretically, let someone exempt any document where someome complains about something. Not good."

A couple of questions here, Mike:

Would a local "whistleblower" policy necessarily afford the "whistleblower" anonymity, or would it simply afford him/her protection against retaliation? (I had imagined the latter.)

Also, what DeFreese seems to be suggesting is that the current local policy (sans "whistleblower" instruction) should afford citizens anonymity. Are you aware of *any* precedent for this interpretation of the ORA, irrespective of the computer being used by the elected official to receive the coorespondence? (I'm not.)

Thanks.

While I understand why Commissioner DeFreese feels that way, the fact is that anyone who has wanted to keep some document from the public may have had noble intentions and the public good at heart. But giving people in government leeway to determine what is public record and what is not is a slippery slope and creates the possibility that someone can claim it is covered by an exemption.

I'd strongly urge folks to contact Frank Gibson at the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. (link...) Frank is a former reporter and reader advocate at The Tennessean. He can address these issues far more knowledgably than I can. Which probably isn't much of a compliment...but its well intended.

Thanks, Mike. We already heard from Frank Gibson on WBIR yesterday, thusly:

"(DeFreese) said she believes the Constitutional right to free speech trumps the Open Records Act."

"If they were received in transaction of official business, then I can't think of any exemption that would mean the law doesn't apply," said Gibson. "Ethically speaking, I don't know why (Commissioner DeFreese) would want to withhold it."

(link...)

Steve, I have to respectfully disagree with your read on this one. It just seems that an ORA interpretation that would afford "citizen reporters" anonymity, rather than just protection against retaliation, would degrade the whole "whistleblowing" process, and invite irresponsibility on the part of citizens lodging complaints.

I'll cite this guy, why36not commenting about the p-card audit on the N-S site at 6:42 this morning:

"He has said we should ALL read the response and then judge him. BS I am not about to read all 82 pages of that audit report ans his response and I will bet that very few did so."

(link...)

Irrespective of the particular issue or the particular players relating to this guy's comment, how the hell can an elected official possibly counter the complaints of someone so adamently opposed to READING THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH HE PRESUMES TO OPINE (in 618 comments, so far)? And why on earth would we want public policy to afford him the right to do that anonymously (to other elected officials, I mean)?