barbaraz%hawkeye.gwd.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Barbara Zanzig) (05/21/87)
An editorial in The (Portland) Oregonian:
OPENNESS RESISTS CHIPPING
Oregon is inching toward truly interactive local government. The Gresham
City Council has voted to supply its members with computer terminals in
their homes, to enable them to do research in the city's system at any
time.
Providing unpaid elected officials with the tools to do their job better
is easily worth the $6,000 appropriated for this purpose. But in a state
with a strong Open Meetings Law and Open Records Law, does technology now
require an Open Electronic Impulses Law?
The Gresham computer system, like many others, permits users to send
messages to other users. Anyone with a modicum of conspiracy theory can
easily imagine a quorum of the City Council logged on to their computers
together, busily conducting city business beyond the prying eyes of those
without user codes.
Gresham officials realize the risks involved. Even if city residents
cannot gain access to the system, the information in it still belongs to
them. And since a private conference call among a council quorum is
illegal, a computer caucus would equally constitute an access violation.
"What goes in is something we're concerned about, and I will probably
advise them to be conservative," says City Attorney Tom Sponsler. "For
council members to communicate, with a quorum, on how they feel about
policy is not appropriate, and I will so advise them."
Sponsler thinks there is a greater potential for violations of the Open
Records Law than the Open Meetings Law. "Anything of any substance," he
advises, "should not exist only online." Members should also remember, as
Lt. Col. Oliver North could remind them, that anything put into a system
can later be pulled out of the system.
City Manager Wally Douthwaite expects that before the system goes on line,
Gresham will need a written policy on its use. The need for clarification
may not stop there.
"There may be a time when computer use will be so universal that we will
need to take another look at the law," says Oregon Attorney General Dave
Frohnmayer. "The Open Meetings Law was not designed for this technology."
The rules, Frohnmayer and Sponsler agree, should be clear. Providing
information by computer is fine; debating and negotiating electronically
slips into silicon secrecy.
If the legal principle is clear, the technology should be able to follow.
All that is needed by Gresham - and the cities that will doubtless follow
its example - is a package of Open Meeting Software.
And people who understand its importance.
***[end of editorial]
I spoke to the reporter who covered the story, and he said it was an
email system, not an interactive conferencing system. He thought they'd
be using a VAX 220 (?), and didn't know which operating system.
Barbara Zanzig
{major backbone sites}!tektronix!tekecs!barbaraz
barbaraz@tekecs.tek.comtaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (05/27/87)
[In response to the article from The Oregonian about the Gresham [Oregon] City
Council and the decision to supply its members with computer terminals in
their homes... ]
After reading this report I am left with lots of questions, mostly what
is it they are doing in Gresham? From what I can tell from the article
they are installing a small VAX system that will only give them the tools
to send Mail and maybe do spreadsheets. Unless this system is going to
be connected to other city computers, if any, without conferenceing
software there is not much else they can do.
If this is the case then the system is truly an affront to the citizens
of Gresham as all that would be going on is the 'private' communications
of the City Council (which seems to be against Oregonian laws).
Even if the system is a 'conferenceing' system, as well as a mail system,
I wonder how 'just' it would be without general public access. Having a
city run such an open system is still no protection against misuse, as most
of us reading this list are sure to understand it's all to easy to hide
information in a closed or even partly open system.
I support the creation of systems that expand the understanding of people
about their government. In contrast I will question any system that our
government wishes to install that I as a Citizen cannot look into and explore.
I would be interested in more detail of what the goverment of Gresham
plans on doing.
||ugh Danieltaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/02/87)
Hugh Daniel writes in response to the article from The Oregonian about the Gresham [Oregon] City computer system: > In contrast I will question any system that our government wishes to > install that I as a Citizen cannot look into and explore. Somehow the logic of this statement evades me. The last I heard the government had hundreds (maybe thousands) of computers (IRS FBI NSA CIA DOD etc.). Name one government agency that allows Citizens to look into and explore it's computer. Bill Gunshannon
rmatt@psueea.UUCP (Rick Matt) (06/09/87)
Bill Gunshannon replies to a posting fo Hugh Daniel with: >> In contrast I will question any system that our government wishes to >> install that I as a Citizen cannot look into and explore. > >Somehow the logic of this statement evades me. The last I heard the >government had hundreds (maybe thousands) of computers (IRS FBI NSA CIA >DOD etc.). Name one government agency that allows Citizens to look into >and explore it's computer. Are you merely pointing out the commonness of computers that citizens aren't allowed to look into? Your logic escapes me. I can't _know_ what Hugh Daniel meant, but I took it at face value. Just because it is common for there to be computers that the average citizen can't look into doesn't mean that Hugh doesn't question such systems. (Or, put a bit more straight-forwardly, Hugh can question the common practice of preventing citizens for gaining access to government computer systems.) Your point that it is presently common for this to happen certainly puts Hughs comment in a differant light, but the statement is far from illogical. Rick Matt