A recent study by the Minnesota Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists serves a purpose: It’s an eye-opener.

Tuesday, April 18, 2000

A recent study by the Minnesota Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists serves a purpose: It’s an eye-opener.

Unfortunately, it’s become more of a he-said, she-said match between those who conducted the survey and those officials who responded to the requests for public information. Certainly, public officials in those counties and cities where the information requested was not released aren’t seen favorably by the report. On the other hand, a few flaws have surfaced in the reporting of the data.

What everyone needs to do is step back and figure out where we go from here.

Let the Freedom of Information survey serve its purpose: It told us that not all public officials are receptive to requests for public information. The state’s laws regulating the release of such information are quite unwieldy. Quite frankly, it might be difficult for many to become familiar with it.

On the other hand, perhaps guidelines need to be drawn up to steer not only public officials who must respond to these requests, but also assist journalists and private citizens who want to review such data. In addition, the fees that counties, cities and school districts can charge to make copies of or to research public information vary greatly around Minnesota. Perhaps a standard needs to be implemented there, too.

One flaw that has surfaced in the reporting of the data collected by the SPJ volunteers around the state was how some requests were logged. In both the Austin and Albert Lea school districts, information on the superintendents’ salaries and benefits were requested. In both situations, school district employees declined to make copies of the information from official documents and instead wrote down the information. In the Albert Lea district, the school employee said the data was included with other budget information, implying that the requester would not be able to sort out the requested information. In both situations, because the requested information on official documents was not allowed to be reviewed by the requesters and copies were not made, the data was reported that the requests were not honored. That data told only half the story.

The bottom line is that while some data was easily released across the state, other data wasn’t as easily accessible. And that’s where the problem lies. Public information is for the public. If the public can’t gain access to the information, it allows government to operate with a cloak. When that happens, we all lose.