 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
Arizona Court Rules On Work E-Mails
by Michael Martinez
The Arizona Supreme Court last week ruled that government employees should not be allowed to determine whether personal e-mails they send on government accounts should be kept private.
In a 14-page opinion, the state's high court found that all e-mails generated or maintained on government systems should generally be considered public records. The ruling directed a state superior court to settle a case in which the publisher of The Arizona Republic sued to obtain e-mails sent by former Pinal County Manager Stanley Griffis, who recently was convicted of tax fraud and other assorted felonies.
According to the court, those seeking e-mails that government officials wish to keep private should be able to ask a judge whether those documents fall within the state's public records law.
"If a document falls within the scope of the public records statute, then the presumption favoring disclosure applies and, when necessary, the court can perform a balancing test to determine whether privacy, confidentiality or the best interests of the state outweigh the policy in favor of disclosure," the court said.
Griffis pleaded guilty in January to stealing roughly $500,000 in public funds at his former job. His sentencing trial will be held later this month.
The Arizona Republic filed a request to obtain his e-mail records after an investigation into his office was disclosed. But county officials withheld some messages that Griffis claimed were personal in nature. No court has reviewed the disputed e-mails. The State Supreme Court said that absent such a review, it would have no record on which "to determine the nature and content of the request documents."
It remanded the case for a state superior court to determine whether the e-mails are public records. Griffis will bear the burden of establishing why they should be kept private.
"If the party cannot establish that the documents are not public records, the trial judge can still consider whether privacy, confidentiality or the best interests of the state outweigh the policy in favor of disclosure," the court said.
Public records also were a hot topic in Washington state this week, where Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a bill to conduct a review of exemptions in the public disclosure law. The measure will require periodic reviews of the law to determine which exemptions should be changed or eliminated.
In a signing statement, the Democratic governor said the state's public records law has become unnecessarily complicated. "There are over 300 exemptions to the Public Records Act," she said. "It is time we take a good long look at each one of them and decide whether they are still necessary today."
Ex-School Workers Caught In E-Rate Scam
The former technology director for Atlanta's school system pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from vendors doing business with the district.
Federal prosecutors said Arthur Scott was part of a scheme to defraud the city through the e-rate program, a federal initiative directing funds to schools and libraries in rural and low-income neighborhoods for telecommunications services. Scott's wife, Evelyn Myers Scott, also pleaded guilty to defrauding the school system while working for its information services department.
According to the Justice Department, the Scotts took more than $320,000 from vendors, most of which was placed in a personal bank account. Justice said Arthur Scott took $37,917 from one firm in 2002 that was looking for e-rate work. He was responsible for managing the school system's e-rate program.
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cleveland schools were the only city system in the country that received more e-rate money per student than Atlanta's from 1998 to 2002.
A sentencing trial for the Scotts has been scheduled in July. The maximum prison sentence for bribery relating to programs that receive federal funds is 10 years. The charge also carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
"Taking payoffs is not the way to do business on behalf of our schoolchildren," U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said in a press release. "School system employees must maintain the same high standard of honesty and fair play for themselves as the schools set for their students. Hopefully, this case will teach more than a lesson. It will underscore the commitment that educational funds must not be squandered through bribery."
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnett said the Scotts cheated the competitive process and "frustrated" federal efforts to provide assistance to economically disadvantaged schools.
Message Board At Center Of Speech Case
Privacy and civil liberties advocates asked an appellate court in California to block a chemical company from forcing the unmasking of an anonymous participant on its online message board.
The California First Amendment Coalition and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief challenging a lower court ruling that the message board poster should be identified to the firm, H.B. Fuller. The company filed a subpoena to uncover the author of a post that contained information it claims only could have been obtained at a "company town-hall meeting" for employees.
H.B. Fuller said the disclosure qualifies as a violation of an employee confidentiality agreement, but the defendant in the case does not claim to be an H.B. Fuller employee.
The California coalition and EFF told the appellate court that the right to speak anonymously, on the Internet and otherwise, is rooted in the Constitution and has been recognized by courts in California and at the federal level. They argued that the lower court inappropriately allocated the burden of proof in the case on the defendant and applied insufficient standards to protect the defendant's right to free speech.
"By allowing [the company] to uncover the identity of an anonymous critic through a civil subpoena without applying the appropriate stringent test for reviewing such subpoenas ... the lower court seriously undervalued this fundamental right and set a perilously low threshold for stripping a speaker of his or her anonymity," the groups said.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
