I'm glad to see that this has sparked such interest. I'll try to respond to some of your comments here...
First, my attorney essentially put up the capital to take on the case. It wasn't entirely pro bono, per se, because Indiana has special laws about cases involving the Access to Public Records Act. In 1998, our Governor established the Office of the Public Access Counselor, which was billed as a kind of watchdog organization for members of the public and their questions about access. When I was initially denied my request, I filed a formal complaint with the PAC office; they issued an opinion in my favor. However, the office has no binding capability, and the city continued to ignore that decision. If a citizen does take the denying agency to court and wins, after obtaining a favorable opinion from the PAC which was disregarded, said denying agency must pay the citizen's legal bills. That's the only "tooth" that the Legislature built into the PAC law. I couldn't afford to put up the thousands of dollars needed to take the case to court (even though I knew I'd ultimately get it back), so an attorney from Indianapolis contacted me to take the case.
As a matter of public policy, I've thought all along that e-mail addresses should be exempted from the APRA. This case was not about me wanting the e-mails for any use...it was all about enforcing the law as it's written. Having said that, I'm very pleased that the attention this case has garnered has led to lawmakers at the Statehouse amending the APRA so that e-mail addresses would not have to be disseminated by government agencies. So ultimately (and it would have likely not happened if it weren't for this case), that loophole will be closed.
When I received the campaign e-mails from the mayor--after signing up for the city-related list--I contacted the Indiana Elections Division, thinking that he might be breaking the law, using city resources for his reelection campaign. I was told to fear not, as the e-mails were merely public record, and McKillip would have equal rights to access them as anyone else. That's the reason I filed the request in the first place...just to test the theory. When the city continued to stonewall my request, despite the law being so clearly out of their favor, I filed suit. Simply because McKillip disagreed with the law did NOT mean he could flagrantly break it.
I think that probably covers most of the common questions. I'll try to monitor the thread and respond to whatever thoughts you have. And don't hesitate to contact me through my website (which has a pretty detailed accounting of all of this as well), RyanNees.com.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to see that this has sparked such interest. I'll try to respond to some of your comments here... First, my attorney essentially put up the capital to take on the case. It wasn't entirely pro bono, per se, because Indiana has special laws about cases involving the Access to Public Records Act. In 1998, our Governor established the Office of the Public Access Counselor, which was billed as a kind of watchdog organization for members of the public and their questions about access. When I was initially denied my request, I filed a formal complaint with the PAC office; they issued an opinion in my favor. However, the office has no binding capability, and the city continued to ignore that decision. If a citizen does take the denying agency to court and wins, after obtaining a favorable opinion from the PAC which was disregarded, said denying agency must pay the citizen's legal bills. That's the only "tooth" that the Legislature built into the PAC law. I couldn't afford to put up the thousands of dollars needed to take the case to court (even though I knew I'd ultimately get it back), so an attorney from Indianapolis contacted me to take the case. As a matter of public policy, I've thought all along that e-mail addresses should be exempted from the APRA. This case was not about me wanting the e-mails for any use...it was all about enforcing the law as it's written. Having said that, I'm very pleased that the attention this case has garnered has led to lawmakers at the Statehouse amending the APRA so that e-mail addresses would not have to be disseminated by government agencies. So ultimately (and it would have likely not happened if it weren't for this case), that loophole will be closed. When I received the campaign e-mails from the mayor--after signing up for the city-related list--I contacted the Indiana Elections Division, thinking that he might be breaking the law, using city resources for his reelection campaign. I was told to fear not, as the e-mails were merely public record, and McKillip would have equal rights to access them as anyone else. That's the reason I filed the request in the first place...just to test the theory. When the city continued to stonewall my request, despite the law being so clearly out of their favor, I filed suit. Simply because McKillip disagreed with the law did NOT mean he could flagrantly break it. I think that probably covers most of the common questions. I'll try to monitor the thread and respond to whatever thoughts you have. And don't hesitate to contact me through my website (which has a pretty detailed accounting of all of this as well), RyanNees.com.