WDAM at 6--and 10?

Date: May 3, 2004

WDAM at 6--and 10?

Date: May 3, 2004

Anne:

You are right, FOIA was not focused on until Hanbury's response to (his own) memo. It's interesting that he uses the idea that releasing names of people who got raises is okay, but releasing names of people who were recommended is not. Admission that recommendations were only followed if convenient to do so?

The best thing about the report was the Roy Klumb part. WDAM did do a good job showing everyone that he accused G&S of committing crimes.

Date: May 3, 2004

Just to be clear, I don't believe that this is a violation of the Federal FOIA because the Federal version applies to request made to Federal agencies. Rather, Mississippi has its own version of the statute and it is a violation of the Mississippi version to know release public documents (unless one of the enumerated exceptions apply).

I don't know the Mississippi version, but in other states, it isn't up to the individual agency to determine whether the FOIA exceptions apply (for obvious conflict of interests reasons), but typically a separate entity that oversees implementation of the act. Also, it is usually the party whose information is requested that is entitled to make the claim that the exception applies, not the agency with the information. I am assuming the Mississippi version must be different from both the Federal FOIA requirements and the typical state process.

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
"Just to be clear, I don't believe that this is a violation of the Federal FOIA because the Federal version applies to request made to Federal agencies. Rather, Mississippi has its own version of the statute . . .. I don't know the Mississippi version, . . .. I am assuming the Mississippi version must be different from both the Federal FOIA requirements and the typical state process."

DCeagle--

Here's a link:

http://www.missouri.edu/~foiwww/mississopenrecs.html

Your observations are solicited.

Date: May 3, 2004

Hmm, DCeagle, thanks--didn't realize that there are state statutes. This is very helpful.

Elliot, yes, you're quite right, they did a fine job with Klumb!

Date: May 3, 2004

Here is a link to an excellent resource on use of the Mississippi Public Records Act:

http://www.mcfoi.org/handbook.htm

In reference to my comment that the agency in question must disclose unless the party whose information is requested objects, this applies to third parties who supply information to the agency, e.g. a contractor's proposal in response to an RFP.

Although there apparently is an exception for personnel records in another part of the Mississippi code, the following have been found to not be protected by this exception:

d. Personnel records and applications for employment except those which may be released to the applicant or with the prior written consent of the applicant. §25-1-100(1) (Supp. 1996). This does not exempt the names of persons employed and the compensation paid to such person. Op. Att'y Gen. June 5, 1984 to Bennie G. Thompson. Nor does the exemption for personnel records apply to public employees' accrued compensation time information. Information regarding gross salary and accrued leave are subject to disclosure. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks v. Mississippi Wildlife Enforcement Officers' Ass'n, Inc., 1999 WL 47779, *10 (Miss. 1999). A form listing teachers by name, social security number, race, sex, areas of endorsement, grade ranges, and salary is not exempt, but teachers' home telephone numbers would be. Op. Att'y Gen. July 2, 1984 to N.F. Smith. A mailing list for employees is not exempt. Op. Att'y Gen. June 10, 1987 to Hon. William Hale Singletary. Documents relating to contract employee authorizations under § 25-9-120 (Supp. 1996) are not exempt. § 25-1-100(4) (Supp. 1996). Evaluations of public school administrators are not exempt. § 37-3-2(23) (Rev. 1996).

Here is a link to a MS Supreme Court decision very narrowly construing the personnel records exemption:

http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/990204/9701386.html

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: DCeagle
Here is a link to a MS Supreme Court decision very narrowly construing the personnel records exemption: http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/990204/9701386.html "

Thanks for the case. The personnel exemption is a lot narrower than I would have imagined.

Mr. Hanbury says, "It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act." The boldness of his declaration notwithstanding, I wonder upon what statutory or case law he bases that opinion?

Date: May 3, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" Thanks for the case. The personnel exemption is a lot narrower than I would have imagined. Mr. Hanbury says, "It is my opinion that this information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act." The boldness of his declaration notwithstanding, I wonder upon what statutory or case law he bases that opinion?"

one result of his acquring his new official status with the AG's office is he now can probably go to them for free consultation . . .

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
"one result of his acquring his new official status with the AG's office is he now can probably go to them for free consultation . . . "

The question is when did he attain AAG status? If he had ordered Deans not to fulfill FOIA requests BEFORE he became AAG, then how would that affect this?

How long has he been AAG?

Would not he have to be confirmed by the MS Senate? If so, there would be records on the Bill Status website, and he would not have become "official" AAG until after the Senate confirmed him.