Two recent posts,
only one of which made it into the Tribune. GeeGuy posts the Airport Authoritys stand, the Tribune take, and his own analysis. In reading these, and the court case he cites, I noticed a few things.
In reading the guest editorial, it does read as very optimistic, we want to protect everyone, look at all the money we make, and save, we aren’t doing anything wrong, etc. But a statement like this “the agreement and board policy establish a process which recognizes the public’s rights yet creates a lawful process to protect information which the law accepts as private.” leads one to believe that there is no process to protect information unless the Board institutes one. This statement is misleading.
As GeeGuy points out, there is a process, and the “recognised procedures” have been disseminated by our Court and reduced to language that clearly lays out a process to protect information which the law accepts as private.
Now, it kinda made me giggle a bit when I read ECW this morning. First, we have this on the Airport confidentiality deal. Geeguy cites the G.F. Tribune v PSC. opinion. Down below it he has this. And remember this whole deal?
“Preliminary draft.”
Our City Attorney used the basis of a “preliminary draft” in denying access to public records. While ultimately the City did give up a draft agreement, the Great Falls Tribune never appeared to find this issue very important.
“staff is entitled to entertain preliminary contacts with such businesses without being obligated to disseminate information that might prove fatal to a successful relationship, so long as when an actual agreement is contemplated there is full disclosure and access.”
Sounds kinda like a similar argument. But thats not what made me giggle. In Tribune v PSC, Justice Nelson specially concured. In his opinion, he wrote this.
-
However, I suggest that we must recognize another reality. Workers, shareholders, rate payers, and members of the public individually, are not likely to have the wherewithal to effectively exercise their constitutional right to know in connection with filings and proceedings before the PSC. Though they have the right to do so, few people struggling to make a living and support their families have the time and the resources to comb through volumes of data and documents filed with the PSC and to fight with the utilities over what is confidential and what is not. Much less do these Montanans have the expertise to understand how this information may affect their lives and finances.
-
For these reasons, I submit that the public’s right to know and another fundamental constitutional right–freedom of the press–are inextricably intertwined in cases such as this. Our Opinion discusses the right to know, Article II, Section 9, of the Montana Constitution. Freedom of the press is guaranteed under Article II, Section 7. This Section provides, in pertinent part:
Freedom of speech, expression, and press . No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.
-
I suggest that where, as a practical matter, members of the public may not have the capability to effectively exercise their right to know, the press and the media do have the time and resources to monitor proceedings before the PSC and to ferret out, analyze and publish information that will educate the public. Put another way, in exercising its own right to know, the media, can, via the right of freedom of the press, exercise the public’s right to know on its behalf as well. (emphasis added)
O.K. Great Falls Tribune. Look into it. Meanwhile, I’ll keep reading ECW.
Leave a Reply