Slashdot Mirror

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Maryland_FOIA_procedures

The Maryland law allows departments to charge a reasonable fee which includes both the cost of duplication as well as any staff time in excess of 2 hours involved in the search, compilation, or reproduction of materials. Waivers are permitted considering the person requesting the documents financial status and the public interest in the release of the information.

Make a reasoned guess at how many hours it'd take someone to compile and sanitize the records,
multiply by the hourly wage of a temp, then add in a fudge factor because stuff always take longer,
then add in another fudge factor because everything the temp does will need to be reviewed.
You send that dollar number to the FOIA requester and ask if they still want the documents.

Why did the person want this it? Because they were starting a website to charge businesses for access to this information.

Good for him, but without a compelling public interest, there's no reason he shouldn't bear the cost of the request.

Most states have their own versions of FOIA, including New York. See http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_York_FOIA_procedures.

Palin didn't balance the budget in Alaska, but she did give away half a billion dollars to a foreign corporation to "seed" the building of a natural gas pipeline that likely never will get built. That was a total waste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin When Sarah left, she was proposing billion dollar draw-downs on Alaska's reserves for 2009 and 2010. http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Alaska_state_budget_(2008-2009)

The states don't have to have control over monetary policy to be responsible public servants. Now it's possible (as I said, I was still trying to find the numbers) that spending by state and local governments has a greater return but it still doesn't match up to spending by the private sector.

If you equate spending with fiscal power, then yes, I am asking states to reduce. Politicians in general are like kids in a candy store when they have money.

I can speak from experience here in Georgia having a wife who works for the state. I know all the dirty tricks they pull to pilfer money that was "allocated" to one "project" and then spent elsewhere.

The fact that not all states are facing budget shortfalls* should maybe be an indicator that there are ways to provide a basic functional state goverment without increased government spending or new taxation.

* http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/State_budget_issues,_2009-2010

It's obviously a ploy by the Vermont legislature to plug up some budget holes.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Vermont_state_budget

Every time states get in the black, they find somebody to sue to get some extra money.

You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.

I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget

In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...

There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)

This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.

Change the State Constitution.

And in that same time frame Buckeye went from 50,000 to 500,000 as did Gilbert and Chandler, East Mesa moved into AJ, perhaps we have other reasons for the budget going up like Surprise going from 3 schools to 35

According to this Arizona's year 2000 budget was 23.7 billion USD out of 158.5 billion USD GDP. The numbers for 2009 are projected to be 55 of 267.5 billion.

Perhaps you can explain why you think it's acceptable for state spending to grow faster than GDP. (8% a year or so. I never get raises like that.)

There's a difference between patriotism and theft.

Look at the budget for the State of Arizona...for 2000, it was 27 billion, for 2009, it is 55 billion...

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget

Gov't spending is up 8% annually. Where the hell is the money going? Why do you want to raise taxes to double their current levels when people's paychecks have not gone up. Cut services... the state spending is out of control.

You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.

I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget

In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...

There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)

This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.

Change the State Constitution.

The FOIA only applies to the federal government. You're looking for Montana Public Records Act.

The average CA budget increase since 1978 is 7.7 percent: http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf

The average rate of inflation since 1978 is 4.22 percent:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0

I calculated the numbers from their tables. Please feel free to check and correct.

The budget increases do come in fits and starts some years barely any, others, giant increases. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

Also this:

California's state spending has ballooned in the last decade at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation and rate of population growth in the state. According to Tom Campbell, California's finance director in 2004-2005, if the 1999-2000 budget of former California governor Gray Davis had been increased over the next decade by a factor representing the inflation rate and California's population growth in that time, California would now be experiencing a budget surplus, rather than a deficit even with the recent revenue decline due to the state's economic recession.[6] Instead, California has had a 50% spending increase over the past five years.[7]

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget

Footnotes are specific to the above link.

So...
*CA budget levels have not remained at 1978 levels.
*CA budgets have exceeded the rate of inflation and population growth.
*CA Spends too much

Alaska has pretty strict "Sunshine Laws". Since she was clearly acting in her "official capacity" (see the headers on the emails a bit above), it's pretty clear that she is in violation of the state laws.

I sit on a couple of local Boards (in Alaska) and we are constantly reminded by the Borough counsel about inadvertently getting afoul of the act. It's a Big Deal around here (just goes to show you that not much else is going on, I suppose). She had to know what she was doing was wrong.

> There was nothing in them that any sane person would construe as state business. Talking about election plans and partisan coverage is emphatically not state business; it's a party political matter. Sending family photos is, again, not state business.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008

According to the Guardian, who has looked at the Wikileaks data, among the emails in Palin's account were several from addresses belonging to her aides, including a draft letter to California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a discussion of nominations to the state court of appeals, and several bearing "DPS", the acronym for the Alaska Department of Public Safety.

There's also an image with an email saying "Fw: veep talking points" It's hard to see that as a personal email, given that this was before the Tina Fey jokes.

No one is saying that the family emails were government business. That's absurd. I will even agree that most of the email was personal, but it's clear that not all of it was and the two shouldn't be mixed in the first place! I personally keep my work email on a separate account from my personal email and I don't mix the two in general, particularly if dealing with outside customers.

How is a draft of a letter to Gen. Schwarzenegger concerning government business "personal", anyhow? This becomes even more relevant when you consider that her tax returns are a bit odd. She's been getting a per diem (along with her family!) for being "away from the office" (and at home). At least some of this should clearly be reported as income. I know it's a side issue, but my point is that having one of her emails hacked by some dumbass who declared her innocent doesn't actually exonerate her. Also, we're told that the gov.sarah account was more widely used for government business and it was NOT hacked, if you recall. You can read the tax analysis here, BTW.

And the information I put up on the Alaska Public Records Act, for that matter, specifically says "There is no exception in the law for records of the governor." Yes, there are other exceptions, but it's hard to see Gov. Schwarzenegger as one of her personal advisers. And one ought NOT to be using Yahoo for government business at all.

Can you imagine if she was VP and sent Top Secret information there? I will grant that it's more shady and sloppy than anything. But I'd rather have careful leaders than careless ones.

That said, you're right that she's not hiding some major crime, just violating a few minor laws. So what I'm saying is that I don't trust her because of this.

And I will maintain again (lest someone read this and not grandparent), that the hacker here deserves punishment. I do NOT think he deserves any sympathy. He's a dumbass (which is why I don't believe that he knew anything about Alaska's Public Records laws).

To summarize:
* Palin is secretive and I don't trust her. I think her privacy should be respected, but I wish she wouldn't mix government and private business.
* She clearly breaks many minor laws, but apparently few major ones (I reserve judgment about Troopergate. That investigation was open long before she ran for VP and the guy who said it could be an "October Surprise" was just stating the obvious.)
* The hacker is an idiot who deserves punishment.

Will sarah palin get a similar fine for using Yahoo mail to conduct official business?

This is against the law? Can you cite me the law that makes this illegal?

Yes, and yes.
 

There was NO government business or smoking gun found. He said so himself, and every credible report of the content of the e-mails has concluded likewise. Sarah Palin is entitled to private e-mail just like the rest of us. Sarah Palin was clearly NOT conducting state business using her private e-mail account.

(Furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in public office to *never* mention political words in their private e-mails. A casual mention of a person who holds political office to a mutual friend in a private e-mail is not a violation of any laws, and maintaining that kind of ridiculous assertion will only encourage pols to keep every communication they can out of the system, so it's clearly self-defeating.)

The complaints against Palin are sour grapes and a desperate attempt to defend an indefensible violation of privacy on an unfounded suspicion that there might be some "smoking gun" there.

Personally, I don't think five years in prison is nearly long enough for this sort of deliberate, premeditated, e-crime with the intent to cause harm. A 20-year sentence without parole for any sort of knowing, deliberate breaking of or tampering with public, private, or government e-mail or file/document storage accounts would be more appropriate.

She was definitely using a Yahoo account for state business. It's not the one that got hacked. Do some research before you spout off.

Palin knowingly and deliberately circumvented Alaskan laws that exist to ensure accountability of public officials. Think she should get 20 years?

Take your partisan hate-spewing elsewhere. I'm sick of the team loyalty at all costs mindset this country seems to have. Any public official using commercial email accounts in violation of the law should face punishment for it. Period.

It amuses that there are two competing and mutually exclusive anti-Palin memes going on simultaneously:

(1) She was using insecure free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be kept secure so that not just anyone can hack in and see it!

(2) She was using private free email for Important State Business! That information needs to be made available so that anyone can file a request and see it!

How are those mutually exclusive? She should be using a secure email account that adheres to Alaskan law and properly archives the communications so that they can be subpoenaed if necessary.

She was obviously not doing that.

> Uh, nothing was found. You can keep saying that, but there was nothing there. Sorry.

They found that she was probably conducting government business in violation of the Alaska Public Records Act given the emails marked "CONFIDENTIAL" and those with subject lines concerning appointments and other government business. Whether she will be called to account for that is another thing. The only person who has declared her innocent is the hacker himself. Frankly, I don't take that idiot's word for anything. And yes, you would be right to say that the hacker deserves punishment. But I don't see how Palin deserves sympathy.

> Palin is not in Congress. She is the governor. That is an executive position.

While you are correct in correcting them, that doesn't make her immune to the public records act.

>> ...corruptly fires safety commission over a personal argument...

> She fired the Chief because he was going after funding after Palin denied it. He was trying to go over the Governor's head to get things done.

Actually, he had approval for that and he had it in writing. Palin's excuse is flimsy, at best. Frankly, it's plain to me that she's quite petty whatever her motives.

> Governor's don't like that much. What would your boss do if you went to his boss, or more accurately, the head of a different department to request funding after your boss had denied it? I suspect you would end up in the same place as this particular chief.

Well, considering that he did have approval, she should have thought before acting. After all, Alaska has one of the worst records on rape and this man was trying to do something about that. You go on about how he was "going over her head" (even though he had written permission for this), but let's make one thing clear: he was trying to help Alaskan rape victims. Essentially, you're left arguing that Palin fired the guy for trying to help rape victims!

> Government officials are still citizens. They deserve privacy just like you or I do. If they are not above the law, then they have the same rights as you or I.

Here, I tend to agree with you, only with the caveat that her emails about government business should be separated from her personal emails and made public. I further agree that the hacker deserves punishment.

I do NOT agree that because the hacker was wrong, Palin was right. I believe that there is evidence that Palin violated the Alaska Public Records Act and that she should be held to account for that.

> Otherwise, we would be allowed to see into the private lives of the old lady at the DPS office. She is just as much a government employee as the governor.

No, no one wants to see into people's private lives. The fact that the hacker invaded both is why he deserves to be punished. However, Palin also deserves to be held to account for why she was mixing government and personal business. Even old ladies who send emails concerning DPS business should be required to document them so that we can be assured that our government is operating in a fair & transparent manner. Thus, Palin's work-related email should be extracted from her personal account and made public, while her private matters should remain private.

It's what the law requires and, as you pointed out, she is not above the law.

> But, hey! Don't let the facts cloud your judgment.

Indeed. And please don't ignore laws like the Alaska Public Records Act simply because someone else broke a different one.

> I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING

Spouting that as proof is like taking Slashdot's advice on a legal matter. But I'm fairly sure this idiot didn't know about the Alaska Public Records Act, and it's hard to miss that there were several emails marked "CONFIDENTIAL" and discussing government matters.

That said, you're right that this guy deserves to be prosecuted. He broke the law and he'll get his due. But the fact that he was wrong does not make Palin right.

Actually, Alaska Public Records Act. FOIA is a Federal law, not a state law.

Yes, its the Alaska Public Records Act.

Thanks. I did a bit of googling, and I'm not sure but I think advisory communications between the governor and her advisors may be exempted:

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Alaska_Public_Records_Act

In 1986, in the case of Doe v. Superior Court, the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled that there is a limited "executive" or "deliberative process" privilege that protects communications between the governor and his or her aides about policy matters. This decision related to internal communications about advice, opinions and recommendations. In a 2000 case, Gwich'in Steering Committee v. Office of the Governor, the court said the privilege is intended to "protect the mental processes of governmental decisionmakers from interference."

Also, from what I've seen a lot of what people are describing as "political communications" actually has to do with political campaigning. If I understand correctly, it would actually be unethical to use a government account for that sort of communication.