Monday, May 7, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Washington DC: The City of "Tags"
It is great to be in Washington DC again where I am instructing young people about US Government and the role they can play here and at home in their community. The Close Up Foundation which I have been a part of for forty years had and still continues to have a great impact on me.
As a high school student, I remember being here in the days of the arguments of Vietnam War funding and the impondment of funds by the Nixon Administration. There was also an ability to go easily into the US Capitol to the Senate Reception area to visit with your Senator. It would be like just going to the Minnesota House of Representatives reception area at the Capitol, but US Capitol being more ornate.
Times have changed. Young people though are still excited to visit their Congresspersons and Senators as I will be going to the "Hill" with them.
But one thing I have noticed almost everyone wears a tag in Washington, with their name on it. It must be "change of the times."
As a high school student, I remember being here in the days of the arguments of Vietnam War funding and the impondment of funds by the Nixon Administration. There was also an ability to go easily into the US Capitol to the Senate Reception area to visit with your Senator. It would be like just going to the Minnesota House of Representatives reception area at the Capitol, but US Capitol being more ornate.
Times have changed. Young people though are still excited to visit their Congresspersons and Senators as I will be going to the "Hill" with them.
But one thing I have noticed almost everyone wears a tag in Washington, with their name on it. It must be "change of the times."
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Artful and Foxy Words of Fine Print
As the Minnesota Legislature races towards the end be aware of that A-222 amendment which may have a short sentence with several words and placed on a conference committee bill or a so called must pass bill for the "sake of the state."
As the public has learned from such behavior in the past it can be hard to correct once the public finds out. Just review the various media reports after last years shutdown. Many stories of legislative surprises, revealing switches of money, and just out right "magical" disappearing of legislative language.
In the past, I have seen and discover such amendments, There are many I ignore, some I tell others about, or I take action. Several years ago, the Chair of the House Commerce Committee adopted a short sentence as an amendment, a provision which would have turned our state's strong medical privacy laws into Swiss cheese. I spoke with him. Did not see an issue. I spoke with other legislators, but also with other privacy advocates. The provision was taken out.
Another way of how things slip in is the "mumbo jumbo" of referring to Chapter 628 of the 5th subdivision, paragraph (a) with a few words added. Many times law is made by amending current law. But many people including legislators sometimes do not understand what an amendment may do. The question may not be asked what the change may do to current law.
A case in point. I spoke with a legislator this week about an amendment to our medical records statute. She told me what the purpose of it was. I said that was incorrect because it is already in current law. She read the current law and decided to do language appropriately with what she and others wanted.
The Omnibus tax bill, the Health and Human Services bill, Legacy bill, among others including the "People's Stadium" bill is edging slowly its way towards the finish line.
We the public need to Stop, Look, and Act if we see sly, crafty, and smooth language in the bills we do not understand. So do the elected legislators we put into office.
As the public has learned from such behavior in the past it can be hard to correct once the public finds out. Just review the various media reports after last years shutdown. Many stories of legislative surprises, revealing switches of money, and just out right "magical" disappearing of legislative language.
In the past, I have seen and discover such amendments, There are many I ignore, some I tell others about, or I take action. Several years ago, the Chair of the House Commerce Committee adopted a short sentence as an amendment, a provision which would have turned our state's strong medical privacy laws into Swiss cheese. I spoke with him. Did not see an issue. I spoke with other legislators, but also with other privacy advocates. The provision was taken out.
Another way of how things slip in is the "mumbo jumbo" of referring to Chapter 628 of the 5th subdivision, paragraph (a) with a few words added. Many times law is made by amending current law. But many people including legislators sometimes do not understand what an amendment may do. The question may not be asked what the change may do to current law.
A case in point. I spoke with a legislator this week about an amendment to our medical records statute. She told me what the purpose of it was. I said that was incorrect because it is already in current law. She read the current law and decided to do language appropriately with what she and others wanted.
The Omnibus tax bill, the Health and Human Services bill, Legacy bill, among others including the "People's Stadium" bill is edging slowly its way towards the finish line.
We the public need to Stop, Look, and Act if we see sly, crafty, and smooth language in the bills we do not understand. So do the elected legislators we put into office.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Minnesota Legislative Auditor at it again
Last night I saw a report on KSTP News which showed Legislative Auditor James Nobles stating that Commissioner Jessen of the Department of Human Services was not being forthcoming in providing documents that he has asked for. Currently, the Legislative Auditor along with other government enities are investigating aspects of the $4 billion Medicaid affair.
Many people in Minnesota may not know about this, but the Legislative Auditor was cited recently in a major study. The study was part of an effort by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity to look at how all 50 states deal with accountability and transparency to prevent "funny things" such as corruption, breaking of laws, and dishonesty from happening in government.
Minnesota got a D+ in its report card.
There were two "bright" spots that more than likely kept Minnesota from getting an F. The Legislative Auditor and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
In the more detail report, it highlights the weaknesses of Minnesota laws and institutions.
In the report it states:
"One of the bright spots in the state is the Office of the Legislative Auditor. The Office is widely seen as non-partisan, aggressive, and even-handed in its approach to auditing and evaluating state agencies and programs. In 1973, a private study group recommended creation of an office in the legislative branch comparable to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan governmental “watchdog” at the national level."
I applaud the Legislative Auditor for calling out publicly when higher ups in government are not doing their due diligence in producing documents when they are asked for.
By the way I did a post last year to where the Legislative Auditor may not have enough money to do its "full" job in a keen and constant fashion this current biennium. Is that still true?
Is the Legislative Auditor's nose still cut to smell government wrong?
Many people in Minnesota may not know about this, but the Legislative Auditor was cited recently in a major study. The study was part of an effort by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity to look at how all 50 states deal with accountability and transparency to prevent "funny things" such as corruption, breaking of laws, and dishonesty from happening in government.
Minnesota got a D+ in its report card.
There were two "bright" spots that more than likely kept Minnesota from getting an F. The Legislative Auditor and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
In the more detail report, it highlights the weaknesses of Minnesota laws and institutions.
In the report it states:
"One of the bright spots in the state is the Office of the Legislative Auditor. The Office is widely seen as non-partisan, aggressive, and even-handed in its approach to auditing and evaluating state agencies and programs. In 1973, a private study group recommended creation of an office in the legislative branch comparable to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan governmental “watchdog” at the national level."
I applaud the Legislative Auditor for calling out publicly when higher ups in government are not doing their due diligence in producing documents when they are asked for.
By the way I did a post last year to where the Legislative Auditor may not have enough money to do its "full" job in a keen and constant fashion this current biennium. Is that still true?
Is the Legislative Auditor's nose still cut to smell government wrong?
Monday, March 26, 2012
When will the Minnesota Legislature end?
The Minnesota Legislature will be ending soon, but when? Look through the Ending Tunnel.
Source for optical illusion Slodive.com Story by Pam Oberoi
Monday, March 12, 2012
Will Minn Legislature authorize secret spying?
Minnesota law enforcement has proposed HF 2470/SF 1937 Criminal intelligence, and HF 2435/SF 2317 MNJAC-Fusion Center with public hearings to start this week on them. The legislation allows law enforcement to expand their powers to collect data on you, to share it with others, and to have less public scrutiny than what current law now provides.
In the wake of 9/11 and the last decade laws have been legislated on the federal and state levels to collect more information on you. The proposed legislation means the police may soon be collecting information on citizens at an unprecedented level.
In the wake of 9/11 and the last decade laws have been legislated on the federal and state levels to collect more information on you. The proposed legislation means the police may soon be collecting information on citizens at an unprecedented level.
You might wonder why that matters to you, a law-abiding citizen.
And that's where we have to look at our recent history. Remember, the Gang Strike Force aspersions and disgrace. Those of you who may not remember, part of the indignation over the matter was an existing database system that listed thousands of supposed "gang members." The criteria was set up by cops alone -- and people's names were added solely to the list the same way. It was easy to get on the list. Being seen with an documented gang member, you were listed. If you have a suspicious tattoo that you had done on your trip to Hawaii, you were identified. Even having a close relative on the wrong side of the law could get you possibly captured in the computer. Seen on the street with a convicted person? That could help put you on the list as well.
But more than that, GangNet was secret, unaccountable, and not transparent. The most troubling part of that is that YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW IT. Like all of the most insidious government records, the list was unknown. They wouldn't tell you if you were on the list, wouldn't tell you why and wouldn't tell you how to get off the list. On the other hand, if you applied for a conceal and carry permit you could be denied based on your name being solely in GangNet, or you could be treated as a suspect and be under surveillance or background information gathered on you. Or pop up on a squad car computer screen as a dangerous character if you'd been stopped for something as innocuous as making a prohibited right turn on red.
Minnesota has a long history of these kinds of records. State authorities kept them during World War I to keep track of subversives -- often better known as German immigrants. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police recently had another system, called MNJO. Police developed extensive secret files ahead of the Republican National Convention in 2008. The files were none of your business -- and you couldn't even find out who had the right to look at them.
But more than that, GangNet was secret, unaccountable, and not transparent. The most troubling part of that is that YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW IT. Like all of the most insidious government records, the list was unknown. They wouldn't tell you if you were on the list, wouldn't tell you why and wouldn't tell you how to get off the list. On the other hand, if you applied for a conceal and carry permit you could be denied based on your name being solely in GangNet, or you could be treated as a suspect and be under surveillance or background information gathered on you. Or pop up on a squad car computer screen as a dangerous character if you'd been stopped for something as innocuous as making a prohibited right turn on red.
Minnesota has a long history of these kinds of records. State authorities kept them during World War I to keep track of subversives -- often better known as German immigrants. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police recently had another system, called MNJO. Police developed extensive secret files ahead of the Republican National Convention in 2008. The files were none of your business -- and you couldn't even find out who had the right to look at them.
Almost two years ago, a state panel legislated by the Legislature met over a period of 5 months with hours and hours to discuss about the next generation of domestic intelligence gathering in Minnesota. What they came up with was an executive summary report, but no concrete recommendations because law enforcement was not willing to compromise on major issues such as independent audits, transparency, public accountability, and the trigger that bring people into the database and files the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
Criminal intelligence can be collected on such simple things as a phone call to the police accusing you of being involved in drugs, or by an anonymous tip with any kind of accusation, or even if you are protesting against the war or big government.
How the local and state police use this kind of data, even with good intentions, raises far reaching constitutional rights issues regarding individual privacy, public accountability, and First Amendment issues. There is a real possibility that innocent people could be speculated upon and branded as a suspect and be placed in a database secretly and unaccountable and then the data being shared throughout the state and to the Federal Government.
But I'd like to urge Minnesotans to mind these developments. Ask your legislator to keep track of these bills. Tell your lawmaker that you care about issues like whether or not police can keep files on people who aren't suspected of a crime. Ask who will be watching the watchers. Remind your lawmakers that the state gave you the right to see your personnel file at work, and that it is probably just as, if not more important, to know what the police think of you.
The Minnesota State Legislature can ensure that the tools of law enforcement to solve crime and keep us safe do not become a device for a particular purpose of a police state.
Criminal intelligence can be collected on such simple things as a phone call to the police accusing you of being involved in drugs, or by an anonymous tip with any kind of accusation, or even if you are protesting against the war or big government.
How the local and state police use this kind of data, even with good intentions, raises far reaching constitutional rights issues regarding individual privacy, public accountability, and First Amendment issues. There is a real possibility that innocent people could be speculated upon and branded as a suspect and be placed in a database secretly and unaccountable and then the data being shared throughout the state and to the Federal Government.
But I'd like to urge Minnesotans to mind these developments. Ask your legislator to keep track of these bills. Tell your lawmaker that you care about issues like whether or not police can keep files on people who aren't suspected of a crime. Ask who will be watching the watchers. Remind your lawmakers that the state gave you the right to see your personnel file at work, and that it is probably just as, if not more important, to know what the police think of you.
The Minnesota State Legislature can ensure that the tools of law enforcement to solve crime and keep us safe do not become a device for a particular purpose of a police state.
Because if we have not learned anything from our history, from the abuses of the FBI to what has happened such as the Gang Strike Force scandal in Minnesota, it is this: a little misinformation and a mask of criminal suspicion can keep out of sight bad behavior and dereliction of duty by even the best intended in the midst of us.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunshine, Darkness, and Privacy: The Data Practice Subcommittee
At tomorrow night's Data Practices Subcommittee there will be several bills that will have an impact on the public right to know, but also to their privacy. The proposals are very detailed and can have major impacts in how the public relates and reacts to their government. It takes a lot of work by the Legislature and the Subcommittee exemplifies that by their dedication and expertise.
House File 2044
This bill will make public the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) electronic licensing data. This data has been historically public until recent years. Several years ago, DNR linked their licensing process to the Minnesota drivers license database. The DNR process came under the drivers license law which made the data private. DNR then went to electronic records and severed their relationship to the drivers license database, therefore they came to the Legislature a couple of years ago for permission. The bill was on its way to make the records public again, but last minute "politics" made it private. So here we are again. I suggest that the data should become public.
House File 1784
This is a bill to correct a wrong which was done in the secrecy of the legislative process. The passing of this bill will again bring public accountability to the IRRRB which was misdirected with legislation several years ago. I have done a post on this at http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.
House File 2701
The legislation proposed is very positive except for Section 1 of the bill and gets into the "meat" of policy affecting how far does the public have a right to know how its public money is being spent. It also gives direction to the Department of Administration to help people understand the opinions that have been done by the AdMinn.
Section 1 of the bill which proposes a fee for "expedited" process for production of government data to a request flies in the face of the public ability to get access to their own government data to which they have already paid for. Secondly, it sets up a "double standard" for people who have the money and people who do not have it.
I am not aware of any proposal or law in other states that do this with their general access provisions. There are specifics, such as quick access to copies birth certificates or a new driver's license or replacement.
House File 2647
This bill came about because of the Burnsville Superintendent/Human Resources squabble and a $250,000 pay out. The bill is a beginning, but I think there can be a more accountable and broader fix for this situation which represents the tip of the iceberg of these kind of situations that have permeated the local political subdivisions. Huge amounts of public monies spent on making people go away and not to have the "public" know why is asinine and runs contrary to public scrutiny and accountability.
I suggest apply local political subdivisions to the "public official" section of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This is outlined in a post I did several days ago.
http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.
I encourage the public to go to the meeting and participate. You will see people, lobbyists, and various interests that "pop out" of the woodwork to get their amendment added, but you will also see the commitment of a small group of legislators to a very important subject that has a huge impact on you and I and our role with our government.
MONDAY, March 12, 2012 - 6:15 PM
Meeting Time Note: *Time is subject to change based on Floor Session.
Data Practices Subcommittee
Room: Basement State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Peggy Scott
Agenda: HF2044 (Petersen) Natural resources department electronic licensing classifications repealed.
HF1784 (Anzelc) Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board regulated, and classification of loan or equity investment application data modified.
HF2701 (Holberg) Expedited data requests provided, subcontract filing with government entity required, and other miscellaneous changes made.
HF2668 (Holberg) Fiscal note unofficial data classified.
HF2647 (Myhra) Public data definition relating to agreements involving payment of public money clarified.
*Order of bills is subject to change.
House File 2044
This bill will make public the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) electronic licensing data. This data has been historically public until recent years. Several years ago, DNR linked their licensing process to the Minnesota drivers license database. The DNR process came under the drivers license law which made the data private. DNR then went to electronic records and severed their relationship to the drivers license database, therefore they came to the Legislature a couple of years ago for permission. The bill was on its way to make the records public again, but last minute "politics" made it private. So here we are again. I suggest that the data should become public.
House File 1784
This is a bill to correct a wrong which was done in the secrecy of the legislative process. The passing of this bill will again bring public accountability to the IRRRB which was misdirected with legislation several years ago. I have done a post on this at http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.
House File 2701
The legislation proposed is very positive except for Section 1 of the bill and gets into the "meat" of policy affecting how far does the public have a right to know how its public money is being spent. It also gives direction to the Department of Administration to help people understand the opinions that have been done by the AdMinn.
Section 1 of the bill which proposes a fee for "expedited" process for production of government data to a request flies in the face of the public ability to get access to their own government data to which they have already paid for. Secondly, it sets up a "double standard" for people who have the money and people who do not have it.
I am not aware of any proposal or law in other states that do this with their general access provisions. There are specifics, such as quick access to copies birth certificates or a new driver's license or replacement.
House File 2647
This bill came about because of the Burnsville Superintendent/Human Resources squabble and a $250,000 pay out. The bill is a beginning, but I think there can be a more accountable and broader fix for this situation which represents the tip of the iceberg of these kind of situations that have permeated the local political subdivisions. Huge amounts of public monies spent on making people go away and not to have the "public" know why is asinine and runs contrary to public scrutiny and accountability.
I suggest apply local political subdivisions to the "public official" section of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. This is outlined in a post I did several days ago.
http://opensecretsmn.blogspot.
I encourage the public to go to the meeting and participate. You will see people, lobbyists, and various interests that "pop out" of the woodwork to get their amendment added, but you will also see the commitment of a small group of legislators to a very important subject that has a huge impact on you and I and our role with our government.
MONDAY, March 12, 2012 - 6:15 PM
Meeting Time Note: *Time is subject to change based on Floor Session.
Data Practices Subcommittee
Room: Basement State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Peggy Scott
Agenda: HF2044 (Petersen) Natural resources department electronic licensing classifications repealed.
HF1784 (Anzelc) Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board regulated, and classification of loan or equity investment application data modified.
HF2701 (Holberg) Expedited data requests provided, subcontract filing with government entity required, and other miscellaneous changes made.
HF2668 (Holberg) Fiscal note unofficial data classified.
HF2647 (Myhra) Public data definition relating to agreements involving payment of public money clarified.
*Order of bills is subject to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)