Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

West Virginia Won't Release Broadband Report Because It Is 'Embarrassing'

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-just-bet-it-is dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Charleston Gazette is reporting that the state of West Virginia hired a consulting firm for over $100,000 to investigate the state's use of Federal stimulus money (which included the purchase of $22,000 routers for tiny buildings). Unfortunately, the state government is now refusing a FOIA request to release the firm's report. The reason? The findings 'might be embarrassing to some people,' according to Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette."

29 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Typo in summary by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Replace the word 'embarassing' with 'incriminating'.

    1. Re:Typo in summary by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Replace the word 'embarassing' with 'incriminating'.

      Possibly, but not necessarily, or at least, not primarily. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is the one witholding the information. He's an elected official whose job is probably more to collect campaign contributions than to actually serve the public.

      He very likely discussed the content of that report with the "parties" he is protecting, and was told exactly where he wasn't going to be receiving any more money from if that evaluation wasn't buried. He's probably very well aware that it's going to get pried out of his hands and plastered on page 1 eventually, but this will at least give him a "but I tried to stop it!" when those parties blow up his phone, and he's hoping this will at least do a little damage control.

      But things like that can turn and bite you. This may be a very big thorn in his side, come election day. Depending on how close the competition is, his opposition may drag this issue back above ground for a month of mud slinging. But money can really help to bury things. Depends on how much he can throw at it, and how deep it needs to go.

      "Never give a man a gun unless you know where he's going to point it." Same goes for inviting in a team of investigators to get to the bottom of any mess you are even remotely related to. You'd better either make sure you're squeaky clean, or make sure their opinion is already properly paid for.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's more insight: Representatives of the people have only one job, which is written into their job title - represent the people. So if the representatives are too embarrassed to share what they've done with the funds granted by the people, especially in regards to a project that should benefit the community, it means the money have been either wasted with no regard for public interest, or stolen. Both of these scenarios are covered by criminal law. Hope that covers it. Monetary system is stupid anyway, but that's beside the point.

    3. Re:Typo in summary by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a previous Slashdot article blaming this incident on Cisco, and even though I don't work for Cisco, I want to cut the bs and set the record straight. Let me do so by quoting the words of the main politician behind this project

      West Virginia Homeland Security chief Jimmy Gianato, who's leading the state broadband project, defended the $24 million router purchase last week, saying the devices "could meet many different needs and be used for multiple applications."

      "Our main concerns were to not have something that would become obsolete in a couple of years," Gianato said. "Looking at how technology evolves, we wanted something that was scalable, expandable and viable, five to 10 years out. We wanted to make sure every place had the same opportunity across the state."

      So we have this asshole behind this mess, but the mass media blames Cisco and Verizon. There's more:

      Verizon spokesman Keith Irland said the company simply responded to router specifications detailed in the state's bid posting.

      "They specified the equipment they wanted," Irland said. "That's what they requested, that's what we bid on. We had the lowest price, and we won the bid for the equipment and related maintenance."

      The Gazette-Mail contacted two Cisco sales agents last week, asking whether the 3945 series routers were appropriate for schools and libraries.

      "The 3945 is our router solution for campus and large enterprises, so this is overkill for your network," a Cisco representative responded.

      The sales agents recommended a smaller router -- with a list price of $487.

      State Department of Education officials questioned the size of the routers before Gianato and the Office of Technology executed the $24 million purchase order.

      http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201205050057

      Other than manufacturing the equipment, Cisco had nothing to do with this project. They weren't even involved in the sales. So clearly corrupt corporations are to blame, not the poor innocent politicians. Oh and did I mention that he was commended for this later?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Typo in summary by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "West Virginia Homeland Security chief Jimmy Gianato, who's leading the state broadband project"

      Forgive me my ignorance, but why is the chief of Homeland Security leading a broadband project? Isn't that kind of ... weird?

      Makes one wonder what the exact relation between homeland security and broadband is ... and what ulterior motives this man Gianato is hiding.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
  2. This is what newspapers are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a good example of what we'll lose if and when big city daily papers go under, and are replaced by national/international news outfits with makeshift and/or crowdsourced local staffs.

    1. Re:This is what newspapers are for by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's all well and good. However, you don't want the local city/state funding said local press/paper. Conflict of interest and all that. Would you trust them if there was a financial connection? Political connections are bad enough with the press, but understandably unavoidable. Don't make it worse.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've already lost that. There are hardly any hard-nosed beat-reporters out there. Journalism in 2013 (and for most of the last fifteen years) has consisted of pulling down and repeating the AP feed and rehashing PR faxes.

  3. Good strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just declare all governance an embarrassment and avoid the need for transparency.

    Genius!

  4. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how is that even a legal reason to refuse a Freedom of Information request? Last I checked, "we don't want to" isn't an acceptable reason to refuse.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could see a nasty bed of serpents here.

      On one side:

      Releasing the documents without also releasing a lot of priviledged information would paint at least one person with a very broad brush, and with a very unflattering color. This could very likely jeapordize their careers and good names, and thus has defamation suit written all over it. So, denying access to the information to prevent defamation suits seems crooked, but at least potentially plausible, especially if the situation really is the result of onerous BS further up the totem pole, and the person who will get the bad rap for it really had no other recourse. (Again, that is priviledged information about internal policies, and may be proprietary information from a vendor, and thus not safe to release with FOIA documents unredacted. The redacted form is what paints the negative image.)

      On the other hand:

      Allowing a refusal to satisfy a FOIA request on grounds of "embarasment" is not just a slippery slope; it's a freaking crazyslide, made of tefon, leading into a bottomless pit. Embarking down it is "not a good idea(tm)".

      This is one of those cases where you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

      Personally, I think the "best" solution to this intractable condition is to make govt agencies immune to defamation suits pertaining to information released via FOIA. That's also a slippery slope, but considerably less "teflon crazyslide" slippery than permitting arbitrary denials.

    2. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and embarrassing the government is the whole point of FOIA, so they stop doing things to embarrass themselves.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In some States, it's illegal but there are no penalties for refusing. The "sunshine laws" have "no teeth" a the parlance goes. In other States there are fines or convictions associated, and, surprise, the government complies more often.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't the very reason this FOIA thing was put together, was to force governments to release information they are reluctant to release for that very reason?

  5. He's doing us a service by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's making the FOIA lawsuit a complete slam dunk for the EFF, ACLU, or whoever files it.

  6. West Virginia is the butt... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    of a lot of jokes. Yeah, they screwed up... Again. However, most people don't know that West Virgina was part of Virginia up until the Civil War. They believed so strongly in free labor (as opposed to slave labor) that they succeeded from their state. I can forgive them for a lot of crap after that. It's sad seeing them struggle over basic internet access, but I think it's always been a challenge in WV.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    1. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in West Virginia (not a native, and actual natives are quick to remind me of this fact), and parent's statement is sadly true. There are people here who openly admit that they voted against Obama in the last two elections "because he's black." No shame, and no other reason.

    2. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Informative

      of a lot of jokes. Yeah, they screwed up... Again. However, most people don't know that West Virgina was part of Virginia up until the Civil War. They believed so strongly in free labor (as opposed to slave labor) that they succeeded from their state. I can forgive them for a lot of crap after that. It's sad seeing them struggle over basic internet access, but I think it's always been a challenge in WV.

      Half of my family came from there and I can say that they are facing huge technical problems. Even cell phone service is spotty. There's very little line of sight in the state due to the mountains so they have to depend on lines. It's hard enough keeping roads passable since they wash out regularly. The coal companies used to help with tax dollars but that's been seen as a drain on corporate profits so the tax base is miserable so there's little money to address critical infrastructure so the internet comes in a very distant second to everything else. It's one of the poorest states as well so few people have computers to begin with. Just to spike the ball corruption is rampant. FYI he's one of the ones that isn't corrupt but my mother's second cousin is Governor so I have connections with the state. Another FYI I got a lot of nasty looks for daring to point out West Virginia was a northern state when I was growing up. Most of my mother's family still considers it part of the south. My guess is when the check showed up some one said "yeah internet routers, please" and put the money into his brother's company that fills pot holes.

    3. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by el+borak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I too honor the brave and ethical stance made by the WV leadership 150 years ago. However zero of that honor is conveyed to people simply because they happen to currently inhabit the same geographic area.

      --
      An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
    4. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, that's the story that's in the textbooks, at least.

      The reality of the Civil War was a *lot* more complicated. Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue until Lincoln turned it into the moral justification for the war. Which was a brilliant PR move on his part, since even a century later we're believing in it.

      The #1 reason was the same sort of divisive party politics that continues to this day, with the same party names even. You know what the Republican fringe was saying about Obama during the last elections? That was pretty much what the Democrats were saying about Lincoln, except replace "socialism" with "abolitionism".

      Then there was the whole movement from rural, agriculture-based societies to urban, industrial society. Always a cause for major upheaval. And guess what? East Virginia was mostly agricultural, and West Virginia was mostly coal mines (and thus economically aligned with the Northern cities they fueled).

      Of course there was also the statehood issue. The states, at that time, still had quite a bit more independence than they do now. There had been a delicate balance for years over the slavery issue, trying to make sure that neither side had enough votes to force their own way. Lincoln's election proved that balance was gone - he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states.

      Finally was the whole issue of the war. There was a lull between the initial round of secession and the war proper beginning, during which Virginia was still Union. Only when Lincoln began calling up the armies did the rest secede (and West Virginia re-secede, or de-secede or whatever the term is). Even then, some states tried to declare neutrality.

      As for West Virginia, there was one more reason peculiar to them - geography. The two are separated by the Appalachian Mountains, which are a rather significant barrier. I think it's even easier for them to ship coal to New Orleans (via the Mississippi) than to Richmond. When you have such separation, it's somewhat natural for political divisions to occur.

    5. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by oiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The #1 reason was the same sort of divisive party politics that continues to this day, with the same party names even. You know what the Republican fringe was saying about Obama during the last elections? That was pretty much what the Democrats were saying about Lincoln, except replace "socialism" with "abolitionism".

      Looks to me like it was the south that made slavery the issue on which they opposed Lincoln; divisive politics based on slavery...

      Then there was the whole movement from rural, agriculture-based societies to urban, industrial society. Always a cause for major upheaval. And guess what? East Virginia was mostly agricultural, and West Virginia was mostly coal mines (and thus economically aligned with the Northern cities they fueled).

      Slavery was part of that; industrial societies don't work so well with outright slave labour. Agricultural societies often do - or at least, more primitive ones based on large plantations.

    6. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reality of the Civil War was a *lot* more complicated. Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue until Lincoln turned it into the moral justification for the war. Which was a brilliant PR move on his part, since even a century later we're believing in it.

      The difficulty with your version of history is that it is directly contradicted by documents and statements made before and during the Civil War.
      Here are Declarations of Secession from the four States that decided to explain their reasons

      I could give you an almost endless list of primary sources to dig through,
      but if those declarations aren't convincing, I don't know what else would do it.
      Anyone who says that slavery was not central to the issues of the Civil War is engaging in historical revisionism.

      And, Lincoln didn't really want to end slavery in the South, his plan was to prevent any new States from having slaves, thus allowing slavery in the South to die out in its own time.

      If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

      Ignore whatever you learned growing up and go straight to the sources.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue,,,

      ...but it was the only one that people weren't willing to compromise on. As an example, the North wanted high tariffs, and the South wanted them low; over the years, they went up and down as different factions got enough power to change them. States Rights and Federal Authority clashed over and over, with varying results, but on Slavery, neither side would budge and eventually, the southern hot-heads got their way and we ended up with the Civil War.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even you are being to overly generous to the parent. The only

      point Lincoln would not bend on was not allowing slavery into new territories.

      So when the South seceded to pursue their "God given right" to push slavery into new territories, where exactly were these territories going to come from? The CSA was boxed in on the north by the Union, the West by Union owned territories, the south by slave-free Mexican, plus the growing list of slave free nations in the Caribbean.

      The southern states seceded specifically because living in peace was insufficient.

      The CSA was built on a promise of spoils of war. Unless the southern politicians were all liars, there was no logical reason to believe that peace was possible. The CSA offered war, war, war, and more war from the get go. Once the southern started up the shooting and murdering*, raising a Union army was Lincoln's only reasonable option.

      * Yes, murdering. For example, secession was hotly contested in Texas. Dozens of pro-unionists were murdered in broad daylight for voicing their political views. That is hardly the only example.

  7. They are waiting for a response from lawyers by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Funny

    They asked if "whiskey stills" can be considered internet routers. As soon as their lawyers sober up we should have an answer.

  8. Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    West Virginian here. It is very embarrassing. Unless you live a couple miles away from the interstate, good luck on finding an ISP delivering more than 5 megabits down, if that. If you're one of the lucky ones, 25Mb is the high-falutin', rip-roarin', dad-gum best it gets. My cell phone often gets faster speeds than my cable connection, and your choices there are Comcast, Suddenlink, or Frontier. Huntington was in the running for Google Fiber, and had we won, it could have sparked a sort of a renaissance in this area. But instead we were too afraid of change, too paranoid of the future, too lazy to make a difference.

    Thanks for running this story. Maybe lighting a fire under their ass will encourage them to lay down some fiber. At least I wouldn't have to worry about the internet going out because some methhead is stealing copper down the street.

  9. FOIA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please correct me if I am wrong ...

    If anyone file an FOIA request for some document, the authority has to comply ... except when the information released can lead to national security, or do harm to someone's life (like name of spy, or something)

    That is why the authority retains the right to redact the documents they release

    If W.V. decides to NOT release anything on the ground of it's "embarrassing" (or even as the GP has stated, "incriminating"), then they (the W.V. government) is in direct violation of the FOIA act.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:FOIA by headwes · · Score: 5, Informative
      The FOIA that we all know and love is a federal law that applies to federal agencies. West Virginia, like most states, has their own public records law that applies to their state agencies which you'll need to read to know whether they're in violation. Maybe they're claiming exemption #13:

      (13) Computing, telecommunications and network security records, passwords, security codes or programs used to respond to or plan against acts of terrorism which may be the subject of a terrorist act;

    2. Re:FOIA by GNious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Releasing it might put Government Officials and Elected Representatives' lives at risk.....when the general population see how poorly they've handled things.