Yesterday’s print edition of The World newspaper carried a story covering declarations made at a recent chamber luncheon by structure advisory committee co-chair Al Pettit that the county IT system is a leaking sieve of mismatched hardware and software and prone to data loss and theft. According to the article, Pettit suggests that confidential medical records retained by public and mental health and employee records may be at risk of hackers. Pettit’s bonafides validating his opinions have been challenged by readers of this blog but assuming he is right and the county is especially vulnerable to security breaches isn’t advertising it, in itself, a huge security breach? He might as well have taken out an ad in hackers quarterly

If ever there was an example of why un-vetted citizen appointees should not be given access to confidential or sensitive public material this self appointed county spokesman would be the campaign poster boy.

Speaking of confidential public material Oubonh White has responded to my public records request for material used by the structure advisory committee admitting that the public has a right to the material but wanting to charge $500 to redact names from the employee questionnaires and more than $900 in other charges.

Rather, than denying your request for the employee surveys in its entirety, the County recognizes the underlying policy of the public records law may entitle you to at very least the purely factual information contained in the employee surveys.

The added emphasis is mine but I find it curious that the public would not also be entitled to any false information evaluated by the committee. The Oregon statutes are clear. “The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made.” Nevertheless, White goes on to explain that ferreting through the pages of questionnaires, etc… to redact “false” information will be a lengthy process.

the County must protect the identity of the respondents, any non-factual information, as well as abide by its promise to employees that their opinions will be confidential and can be submitted anonymously to protect them from retaliation and encourage frank and honest communication. As such, ORS 192.505 requires the exempt portions of those surveys to be separated or redacted from the non-exempt portions. The distinction between what mayor may not be exempt is a legal determination, thus the Board assigned this task to the Office of Legal Counsel. The hourly rate posted on the County’s website for an attorney in Counsel’s Office is $125 an hour. At this time the Committee has provided my office with a majority of the surveys. Assistant County Counsel, Josh Soper and I will both work on the redactions in order to speed up the process and reduce the cost as much as possible. At this time I estimate it will take no less than four hours.

Knowing that the public is entitled to the information from the onset, wouldn’t it have been appropriate for counsel to ensure anonymity to begin with rather than punishing the public now for charges to correct counsel oversight? Why should the public pay for White’s poor judgment when we already pay her salary?

Other items requested included all electronic deliberations conducted by the committee.

You also requested all emails between Committee members “related to the production of the reports”. The County does not plan on producing all other emails related to the setting of meetings or other tasks unrelated to the “production of the reports”. Please clarify further if your request also seeks those em ails. If you do wish to receive those emails, then be aware portions of those emails unrelated to the production of the reports may contain information exempt from disclosure under federal law as protected health information.

The entire response can be read here and includes $1,442 worth of charges to a taxpaying citizen for producing material the structure committee should under Oregon statutes already have on its website. In fact, I would be satisfied if they simply uploaded the records on the website.

Coos County Counsel response to Geddry records request

UPDATE It appears that Al Pettit has trod on ORS 192.501 (23)(c)

192.501. The following public records are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505 unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance:

(23) Records or information that would reveal or otherwise identify security measures, or weaknesses or potential weaknesses in security measures, taken or recommended to be taken to protect:
(a) An individual;
(b) Buildings or other property;
(c) Information processing, communication or telecommunication systems, including the information contained in the systems;

White referenced the following ORS as reasons for redacting records.

192.502 Other public records exempt from disclosure. The following public records are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505:

(1) Communications within a public body or between public bodies of an advisory nature to the extent that they cover other than purely factual materials and are preliminary to any final agency determination of policy or action. This exemption shall not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular instance the public interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees of public bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

(2) Information of a personal nature such as but not limited to that kept in a personal, medical or similar file, if public disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance. The party seeking disclosure shall have the burden of showing that public disclosure would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

(4) Information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential, the public body has obliged itself in good faith not to disclose the information, and when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.

White also defers to County Rule 3317

CR 3.330 says the County’s Legal Counsel is involved in cases of litigation, but there is no litigation.

CR 3.315 (4) Says a Fee Reduction or Waiver may be granted if the County Board of Commissioners determine that the reduction or waiver of the Fee is in the public interest because making the record available would primarily benefit the public. IMHO, transparency related to the major changes about to be made in the County’s form of government and function is in the public interest.


http://www.co.coos.or.us/Forms_Repository/Instructions_Public_Record_Request.pdf

Many thanks to Dr Robert Fischer for researching these laws.

Bob Main

(541) 396-3121 ext 770

email Bob Main

Fred Messerle

(541) 396-3121 ext 247

email Fred Messerle

Cam Parry

(541) 396-3121 ext 281

email Cam Parry