The Minnesota shutdown created a lot of hubbub of how the public business is done behind closed doors. Deals being agreed upon without scrutiny, public and interested parties not knowing what money or language was being cut or added, even many legislators did not know what their leaders were doing. So what is a possible solution?
I recently read a New York Times article which intrigued me. The story is how a chief minister in India came up with a new way to be open and transparent to the public he represents and works for. He decided to place a web cam in his office and feed it on the Internet, 24/7. (approx ahead 10 hour difference with central time)
The Chief minister or an equivalent of a state governor, Oommen Chandy, states to the NY Times, “ I believe that we have to create an atmosphere where everything should be in a transparent way."
The web cam that's been running since July 1, has had 293,586 users through the midpoint of July, according to the Times.
Local and state government in Minnesota is not in the"state of affairs" that India is in with bribery and corruption from its high levels of government to the small local entities. But there have been calls for better transparency and accountability from the public for elected officials and employees for all levels of government in Minnesota.
If no one adopts the web cam here in Minnesota, which I think no one will-----What are ways technology can be used to make government more open, transparent, and accountable?
Though I can see this kind of set up being used if we are ever again in a shutdown situation where the State Capitol is closed to the public. Where decisions are made by a few people behind closed and locked doors.
Have the Governor's reception room and whatever conference room is used for discussion set up with camera, secondly, have audio. The public would be able to see and hear everything. What do you think?
Minnesota would be watching.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
No more public info on who built Planned Parenthood What's Next?
An update from a past post. The City of St Paul went to the Commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Administration to have specific data on who's constructing the new Planned Parenthood building be secret. The Commissioner issued an opinion.
St Paul's Department of Safety and Inspection (DSI) has been relying on the opinion to keep the identity of subcontractor's, suppliers, and of the like away from the public, but only for the architectural file.
They have taken it one step further. DSI has white washed the names of companies and businesses from the general permit filings from their website and databases which the public can see. The names of subcontractors and suppliers were on it two weeks ago. No more.
If you put in the address where the building is being built you will see general words where a business or companies name would be. Flannery Construction is listed as being the overall project contractor per City Ordinance.
As I have stated previously I question the broadness of the Commissioner's opinion and the interpretation by the City of St Paul.
Planned Parenthood and the City of St Paul indicated they want names secret because of threats and boycott campaigns. What will the next step be? If a company receives threats and reports it to the police will that file become secret. Information such as request of service and incident data has always been public
I have never seen before a broadness, sweep, and interpretation of an opinion that makes public data in this way so secret Are facts or politics driving the opinion and the interpretation of it?
I spoke with Don Gemberling, well known expert on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, how St Paul erased the identities of contractors. His immediate response was "Did they seek the approval of the records disposition panel?" The records disposition panel is a entity that gives approval to destroy official government records. Is electronic permit data on the website an official record which documents an action by government. Did the City of St Paul destroy an official record in violation of law?
The opinion and interpretation has been described by a number of people who are involved with open government as terrible, horrible, and possibly bizarre. As a person to me stated the Legislature does not intend absurd results. Is this though what's happening with the opinion and interpretation of it?
The use of "security information" to deny the public access to public data is becoming a new phenomena with government in Minnesota. There has never been an oversight hearing on the opinion process since that law was created 18 years ago.
I encourage the Legislature to take action.
St Paul's Department of Safety and Inspection (DSI) has been relying on the opinion to keep the identity of subcontractor's, suppliers, and of the like away from the public, but only for the architectural file.
They have taken it one step further. DSI has white washed the names of companies and businesses from the general permit filings from their website and databases which the public can see. The names of subcontractors and suppliers were on it two weeks ago. No more.
If you put in the address where the building is being built you will see general words where a business or companies name would be. Flannery Construction is listed as being the overall project contractor per City Ordinance.
As I have stated previously I question the broadness of the Commissioner's opinion and the interpretation by the City of St Paul.
Planned Parenthood and the City of St Paul indicated they want names secret because of threats and boycott campaigns. What will the next step be? If a company receives threats and reports it to the police will that file become secret. Information such as request of service and incident data has always been public
I have never seen before a broadness, sweep, and interpretation of an opinion that makes public data in this way so secret Are facts or politics driving the opinion and the interpretation of it?
I spoke with Don Gemberling, well known expert on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, how St Paul erased the identities of contractors. His immediate response was "Did they seek the approval of the records disposition panel?" The records disposition panel is a entity that gives approval to destroy official government records. Is electronic permit data on the website an official record which documents an action by government. Did the City of St Paul destroy an official record in violation of law?
The opinion and interpretation has been described by a number of people who are involved with open government as terrible, horrible, and possibly bizarre. As a person to me stated the Legislature does not intend absurd results. Is this though what's happening with the opinion and interpretation of it?
The use of "security information" to deny the public access to public data is becoming a new phenomena with government in Minnesota. There has never been an oversight hearing on the opinion process since that law was created 18 years ago.
I encourage the Legislature to take action.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Following the Shutdown Money
There's been hullabaloo at the Minnesota State Capitol since news reports appearing about legislators getting retroactive pay. The Associated Press and Star Tribune led with the stories which have gone state and nation wide.
There needs to be transparency and openness as to how the Minnesota House of Representatives in general pays its members. How does the House Administration handle requests of "I do not want to be paid?" There needs to be clarification how the process works.
A number of House members publicly stated no paycheck for them during shutdown. The public's view and the member's constituents, this meant not paid later, no deferment, it meant no paycheck, period. House members may have announced before or after the stories hit yesterday that they are going to donate the check to charities, take half-pay, or whatever, but the perception of taking pay after one stated no pay raises questions which are legitimate.
The House legislators whose names appeared on the "list" and who have been confronted by media and constituents have to give kudos for dealing with the questions rather than hide. I know a number of these Representatives. They are hard working and good people.
A lesson can be learned though. There needs to be rules, policies, and procedures laid out as to how information about expenses and salaries of the Legislature, both House and Senate, can be easily accessible by the public. Currently, that is not the case.
Finally, I am aware the House suspended per diem of their $66 per day during the shutdown. Did the Senate do theirs?
There needs to be transparency and openness as to how the Minnesota House of Representatives in general pays its members. How does the House Administration handle requests of "I do not want to be paid?" There needs to be clarification how the process works.
A number of House members publicly stated no paycheck for them during shutdown. The public's view and the member's constituents, this meant not paid later, no deferment, it meant no paycheck, period. House members may have announced before or after the stories hit yesterday that they are going to donate the check to charities, take half-pay, or whatever, but the perception of taking pay after one stated no pay raises questions which are legitimate.
The House legislators whose names appeared on the "list" and who have been confronted by media and constituents have to give kudos for dealing with the questions rather than hide. I know a number of these Representatives. They are hard working and good people.
A lesson can be learned though. There needs to be rules, policies, and procedures laid out as to how information about expenses and salaries of the Legislature, both House and Senate, can be easily accessible by the public. Currently, that is not the case.
Finally, I am aware the House suspended per diem of their $66 per day during the shutdown. Did the Senate do theirs?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Shame of Minneapolis
I just finished reading a number of articles written by Lincoln Steffens. Briefly, Lincoln Steffens was a journalist at the beginning of the 20th Century who wrote stunning exposes on corruption in city and state government. He wrote for a number of magazines and newspapers, one of the famous being McClure's which these articles I refer to appeared in.
To get accountability, transparency, and openness of government was definitely no easy task for the public in the early 1900's. Some people today would say its the same, "no easy task".
I read Tweed Days in St. Louis, Pittsburgh: A City Ashamed, and Rhode Island: A State for Sale among others.
But I was struck by the one he did entitled, the Shame of Minneapolis.
"Minneapolis is a New England town on the upper Mississippi. The metropolis of the Northwest, it is the metropolis also of Norway and Sweden in America. Indeed, it is the second largest Scandinavian city in the world." is how Steffens describes the largest city in Minnesota in 1903. There it was corruption and shenanigans in government at its best in Minneapolis.
Those events, behavior and people that Steffens describes 108 years ago can be parallel to today. Not to the extreme as characterized in the 1903 article, but favoritism, greed, opportunity, use and gain of money, bribery, look the other way when the law is broken, continues and exists in all forms of government presently.
By reading Steffens articles, it's reemphasized to me that transparency and accountability are not new issues with government. It has been a continuous fight between the public and the institution of government since our country's beginnings. The institution of government which is to serve the public.
To get accountability, transparency, and openness of government was definitely no easy task for the public in the early 1900's. Some people today would say its the same, "no easy task".
I read Tweed Days in St. Louis, Pittsburgh: A City Ashamed, and Rhode Island: A State for Sale among others.
But I was struck by the one he did entitled, the Shame of Minneapolis.
"Minneapolis is a New England town on the upper Mississippi. The metropolis of the Northwest, it is the metropolis also of Norway and Sweden in America. Indeed, it is the second largest Scandinavian city in the world." is how Steffens describes the largest city in Minnesota in 1903. There it was corruption and shenanigans in government at its best in Minneapolis.
Those events, behavior and people that Steffens describes 108 years ago can be parallel to today. Not to the extreme as characterized in the 1903 article, but favoritism, greed, opportunity, use and gain of money, bribery, look the other way when the law is broken, continues and exists in all forms of government presently.
By reading Steffens articles, it's reemphasized to me that transparency and accountability are not new issues with government. It has been a continuous fight between the public and the institution of government since our country's beginnings. The institution of government which is to serve the public.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Malarkey of St Paul Officials on the Library budget
I went to the Mayor of St Paul's budget speech at the Amsterdam today which is a new "venue" as the Mayor called it to help revitalize Wabasha Street. Typical budget speech with cuts, lay off possibilities, and the raising of property taxes.
What caught my attention though was the cutting of 50 hours of public access to the St Paul Library System. Living in downtown St Paul I wanted to know if my neighborhood library would be losing hours. As soon as the speech was over I looked for Kit Hadley, Director of the St Paul Library. I asked her if the downtown Central would be losing hours. She stated that the library budget will be released on Friday. In other words, in her view it is not public. I have known Ms. Hadley for decades she knows what I lobby and advocate for. I stated to her that the data is public and that I could place a Data Practices Act request for it. She indicated the data would not be released until Friday.
I tried again stating all I want to know is if downtown Central will be losing hours. It is not a hard question to answer. Her response was the Mayor stated that no information could be released about the Library budget until Friday. I stated to her it's plain BS that I am being told by her. I have interacted with Ms. Hadley many times before on issues of public access and accountability. Usually she is good on those issues, but today she is just following orders.
Decided to track down the Mayor since he gave the order not to have any information about the Library budget released until Friday. Direct question to Mayor Coleman, Is downtown Central Libray going to lose service hours? He did not know. I told him how I asked Ms. Hadley and she would not tell me based on the Mayor's direction. I stated to him it is BS that a simple question as to whether or not the downtown library will lose hours cannot be answered.
Mayor Coleman was annoyed I believe about my question and statement. We interacted for a minute or two. He stated that the information will be released on Friday.
The Coleman Administration has a knack for wanting things to be secret or kept from the public until they decide to give it out even though it is public data. In 2009, Mayor Coleman wanted to keep budget data completely secret and away from the public until the Mayor gives his speech. With the recent selection process of the new St Paul Police Chief the administration wanted to have meetings closed. There are other examples.
Before I left the Mayor, Erin Dady, the Chief of Staff told me to send her an e-mail. I asked her a few minutes later if I did would she tell me whether or not the downtown library would lose hours. Once again she stated the refrain the library budget will be released on Friday. I again stated that the data is public. I also stated the City is just playing the game that government does with the public when they want to control the information and not release it. Before I left the Amsterdam venue, Ms. Dady stated that the employees should know before the public does about hour cuts.
What I experienced is not what many members of the public experience when they ask questions or seek answers because most individuals do not persist. What I encountered with the Mayor, the Library Director, and the Chief of Staff was not pleasant. I am sure they were annoyed. Why they could not answer a simple question or tell me I can give you the answer later today is beyond me. It must be that secrecy and control thing. Wait til Friday.
By the way I had a great conversation with St Paul Superintendent of Schools Silva. I have never met her before. I told her who I was and that I was critical of her in regards how she kept secret the school budget last year. Indicated to her that hopefully she has learned from her experience and the public criticism that came with that episode. She stated she has. Is there hope?
Finally for those those who want to know what malarkey means. Go here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey
Well, that's all folks for now. Got to rush across the street to City Hall to place my Data Practices request in to find out if the downtown library will lose hours. By law that data is to be easily accessible for convenient use so that a simple question like mine can be answered. Will see.
What caught my attention though was the cutting of 50 hours of public access to the St Paul Library System. Living in downtown St Paul I wanted to know if my neighborhood library would be losing hours. As soon as the speech was over I looked for Kit Hadley, Director of the St Paul Library. I asked her if the downtown Central would be losing hours. She stated that the library budget will be released on Friday. In other words, in her view it is not public. I have known Ms. Hadley for decades she knows what I lobby and advocate for. I stated to her that the data is public and that I could place a Data Practices Act request for it. She indicated the data would not be released until Friday.
I tried again stating all I want to know is if downtown Central will be losing hours. It is not a hard question to answer. Her response was the Mayor stated that no information could be released about the Library budget until Friday. I stated to her it's plain BS that I am being told by her. I have interacted with Ms. Hadley many times before on issues of public access and accountability. Usually she is good on those issues, but today she is just following orders.
Decided to track down the Mayor since he gave the order not to have any information about the Library budget released until Friday. Direct question to Mayor Coleman, Is downtown Central Libray going to lose service hours? He did not know. I told him how I asked Ms. Hadley and she would not tell me based on the Mayor's direction. I stated to him it is BS that a simple question as to whether or not the downtown library will lose hours cannot be answered.
Mayor Coleman was annoyed I believe about my question and statement. We interacted for a minute or two. He stated that the information will be released on Friday.
The Coleman Administration has a knack for wanting things to be secret or kept from the public until they decide to give it out even though it is public data. In 2009, Mayor Coleman wanted to keep budget data completely secret and away from the public until the Mayor gives his speech. With the recent selection process of the new St Paul Police Chief the administration wanted to have meetings closed. There are other examples.
Before I left the Mayor, Erin Dady, the Chief of Staff told me to send her an e-mail. I asked her a few minutes later if I did would she tell me whether or not the downtown library would lose hours. Once again she stated the refrain the library budget will be released on Friday. I again stated that the data is public. I also stated the City is just playing the game that government does with the public when they want to control the information and not release it. Before I left the Amsterdam venue, Ms. Dady stated that the employees should know before the public does about hour cuts.
What I experienced is not what many members of the public experience when they ask questions or seek answers because most individuals do not persist. What I encountered with the Mayor, the Library Director, and the Chief of Staff was not pleasant. I am sure they were annoyed. Why they could not answer a simple question or tell me I can give you the answer later today is beyond me. It must be that secrecy and control thing. Wait til Friday.
By the way I had a great conversation with St Paul Superintendent of Schools Silva. I have never met her before. I told her who I was and that I was critical of her in regards how she kept secret the school budget last year. Indicated to her that hopefully she has learned from her experience and the public criticism that came with that episode. She stated she has. Is there hope?
Finally for those those who want to know what malarkey means. Go here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malarkey
Well, that's all folks for now. Got to rush across the street to City Hall to place my Data Practices request in to find out if the downtown library will lose hours. By law that data is to be easily accessible for convenient use so that a simple question like mine can be answered. Will see.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Who is actually building the New Planned Parenthood Clinic?
Every so often I check the Minnesota Department of Administration's IPAD web site. On the site is information on our state laws that relate to access to government data and privacy rights. It also lists opinions which the Commissioner of Administration has made decisions on as it relates to interpretation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Last week I read the latest opinion issued by the Commissioner. What a doozy. It states that the City of St Paul can make not public or secret identities of contractors, subcontractors, and almost any one else that is involved with the new construction of the Planned Parenthood facilities.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is building a new facility in St. Paul. In order to build, PPMNS must file building plans, get building permits, and allow inspection of the construction and get approval by city officials.
What is so unusual about the Commissioner's opinion in my judgement is the sweep of it to which St Paul is allowed to broadly decide what information should be public. I have never seen an opinion like it before. The Commissioner in the opinion states that St Paul should not use it as "a blanket classification scheme." I wondered about that so I visited the St Paul agency that oversees the permits and construction. The name of the agency is the Department of Safety and Inspections. (DSI)
I called and visited with DSI staff about the opinion and how they were interpreting it. I can understand why building plans, security, layout scheme and data specifically related to those areas of the facility can be not public per the opinion, but anything more I question. The staff I met with indicated to me that DSI is taking the position that every document filed with them, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building is not public or "security information".
This would mean the names of the contractors, subcontractors, and others also would not be public. I could see no rationale for that. The opinion says that companies that have worked on PPMNS projects have been subject to threats and boycott campaigns.
Threats towards parties that are involved in the PPMNS project cannot be tolerated by anyone and need to be dealt with immediately and investigated by law enforcement authorities. I have no knowledge as to the degree of the threats, but I do not see it as blanket justification for closing public access to all identities of suppliers, vendors, subcontractors as it seems the City is doing.
Another side to this situation is what about the general permits that are public and collected by another part of DSI, for plumbing, electrical, and other venues of the building process for the PPMNS project. When I questioned DSI staff as to whether or not the general permit data are public I was told that they may be applying the scope of the Commissioner's opinion to that data. The City Attorney may be reviewing that question currently.
I do not believe that data that is public should be made not public under security information without without a very well documented, intensive and thorough review. As to the plans of the building which involve layout and security the case has been made. Identities no. The City of St Paul is interpreting the opinion too broadly now and may in the future to other permit data. Are they using it as "blanket" for all public data to the PPMNS project?
The public has a right to know who builds structures in their communities for a number of reasons from safety to accountability. Another aspect to this situation is that some people in our community may have a viewpoint different than PPMNS. A segment of our community would like to let people know what businesses are doing work on the PPMNS project or public members may not want to do work with companies or individuals who work on the project.
I spoke with Don Gemberling about the Commissioner's opinion. Mr. Gemberling is former director of the division now known as IPAD. He told me about a Minnesota Supreme Court that was decided in 1978 with similar issues.
The court decision was named: Minnesota Medical Association vs State of Minnesota, 274 NW2d 84. The case held that names of all physicians, clinics, and hospitals that had performed abortions with state monies are open to public scrutiny. An argument used against having identities to be public was that there would be boycotts, pickets, and other threats. 33 years later similar arguments, different times, yes.
But it is a case in point not to allow the City of St Paul to arbitrarily deny the public access to public data of the PPMNS project, particularly identities of the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, and others.
Last week I read the latest opinion issued by the Commissioner. What a doozy. It states that the City of St Paul can make not public or secret identities of contractors, subcontractors, and almost any one else that is involved with the new construction of the Planned Parenthood facilities.
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) is building a new facility in St. Paul. In order to build, PPMNS must file building plans, get building permits, and allow inspection of the construction and get approval by city officials.
What is so unusual about the Commissioner's opinion in my judgement is the sweep of it to which St Paul is allowed to broadly decide what information should be public. I have never seen an opinion like it before. The Commissioner in the opinion states that St Paul should not use it as "a blanket classification scheme." I wondered about that so I visited the St Paul agency that oversees the permits and construction. The name of the agency is the Department of Safety and Inspections. (DSI)
I called and visited with DSI staff about the opinion and how they were interpreting it. I can understand why building plans, security, layout scheme and data specifically related to those areas of the facility can be not public per the opinion, but anything more I question. The staff I met with indicated to me that DSI is taking the position that every document filed with them, in their entirety, architectural plans and other documents related to the construction of the PPMNS building is not public or "security information".
This would mean the names of the contractors, subcontractors, and others also would not be public. I could see no rationale for that. The opinion says that companies that have worked on PPMNS projects have been subject to threats and boycott campaigns.
Threats towards parties that are involved in the PPMNS project cannot be tolerated by anyone and need to be dealt with immediately and investigated by law enforcement authorities. I have no knowledge as to the degree of the threats, but I do not see it as blanket justification for closing public access to all identities of suppliers, vendors, subcontractors as it seems the City is doing.
Another side to this situation is what about the general permits that are public and collected by another part of DSI, for plumbing, electrical, and other venues of the building process for the PPMNS project. When I questioned DSI staff as to whether or not the general permit data are public I was told that they may be applying the scope of the Commissioner's opinion to that data. The City Attorney may be reviewing that question currently.
I do not believe that data that is public should be made not public under security information without without a very well documented, intensive and thorough review. As to the plans of the building which involve layout and security the case has been made. Identities no. The City of St Paul is interpreting the opinion too broadly now and may in the future to other permit data. Are they using it as "blanket" for all public data to the PPMNS project?
The public has a right to know who builds structures in their communities for a number of reasons from safety to accountability. Another aspect to this situation is that some people in our community may have a viewpoint different than PPMNS. A segment of our community would like to let people know what businesses are doing work on the PPMNS project or public members may not want to do work with companies or individuals who work on the project.
I spoke with Don Gemberling about the Commissioner's opinion. Mr. Gemberling is former director of the division now known as IPAD. He told me about a Minnesota Supreme Court that was decided in 1978 with similar issues.
The court decision was named: Minnesota Medical Association vs State of Minnesota, 274 NW2d 84. The case held that names of all physicians, clinics, and hospitals that had performed abortions with state monies are open to public scrutiny. An argument used against having identities to be public was that there would be boycotts, pickets, and other threats. 33 years later similar arguments, different times, yes.
But it is a case in point not to allow the City of St Paul to arbitrarily deny the public access to public data of the PPMNS project, particularly identities of the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors, and others.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
GangNet database going BYE-BYE?
A communication sent out by Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom to other law enforcement agencies dated August 1, 2011 states that GangNet is to be shut down effective August 15, 2011
GangNet is a database run by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office since 1998. Two years ago there was a story about the database in the Pioneer Press and a report done by the St. Thomas Law School Community Justice Project with the St. Paul NAACP. The report and the news story created for the public a number of questions of how law enforcement collects data on people and the databases that police use to keep track of people. The debate about GangNet and other related issues were front and center in 2010 at the State Legislature.
With the ending of GangNet by the Ramsey County Sheriff a number of questions still need to be answered to the public. These are some of them:
Why did Sheriff Bostrom make this decision?
When he took office in January, 2011, did he have an evaluation, or review of the GangNet program done?
What did the report say? Were there issues and problems? Did he talk with his colleagues in law enforcement and what did they say?
With thousands of people being in GangNet should not the subjects be made aware that they either are or were in the database?
Granted GangNet disappears, Will it not appear in another form? Is there a need to have such types of databases? If so how can law enforcement guarantee accountability and transparency?
The GangNet program is an example of how law enforcement collects names and data on thousands of Minnesotans, some justified, some not, putting them in databases and sharing that information with others within the law enforcement community with the public not even knowing about it. There are many databases within Minnesota law enforcement agencies with individual names in them. These databases have names and data from contact reports to licence plate reader collection.
The broader concern of how law enforcement collects "intelligence" on the public, is the issue that underlies the discussion of GangNet. The Minnesota Legislature in 2010 recognized this by forming a work group to study in essence a tough and expansive question:
How can Minnesota law enforcement collect "intelligence" on citizens to prevent crime and keep people safe, but at the same time have accountability, transparency, and respect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties?
The group known as the SF 2725 Work Group met last fall. Their proceedings, material collected, and their report is available through the link/BCA website. Bottom line is the work group came to a general agreement on some issues, but on others they did not. "Key" issues such as how accountability and transparency is implemented, what is the trigger/standard that is used to collect "intelligence", among other points, there was no agreement.
So is GangNet really going Bye-Bye? No, it will just rear its head in another form and named something else with less public scrutiny, accountability, and transparency.
GangNet is a database run by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office since 1998. Two years ago there was a story about the database in the Pioneer Press and a report done by the St. Thomas Law School Community Justice Project with the St. Paul NAACP. The report and the news story created for the public a number of questions of how law enforcement collects data on people and the databases that police use to keep track of people. The debate about GangNet and other related issues were front and center in 2010 at the State Legislature.
With the ending of GangNet by the Ramsey County Sheriff a number of questions still need to be answered to the public. These are some of them:
Why did Sheriff Bostrom make this decision?
When he took office in January, 2011, did he have an evaluation, or review of the GangNet program done?
What did the report say? Were there issues and problems? Did he talk with his colleagues in law enforcement and what did they say?
With thousands of people being in GangNet should not the subjects be made aware that they either are or were in the database?
Granted GangNet disappears, Will it not appear in another form? Is there a need to have such types of databases? If so how can law enforcement guarantee accountability and transparency?
The GangNet program is an example of how law enforcement collects names and data on thousands of Minnesotans, some justified, some not, putting them in databases and sharing that information with others within the law enforcement community with the public not even knowing about it. There are many databases within Minnesota law enforcement agencies with individual names in them. These databases have names and data from contact reports to licence plate reader collection.
The broader concern of how law enforcement collects "intelligence" on the public, is the issue that underlies the discussion of GangNet. The Minnesota Legislature in 2010 recognized this by forming a work group to study in essence a tough and expansive question:
How can Minnesota law enforcement collect "intelligence" on citizens to prevent crime and keep people safe, but at the same time have accountability, transparency, and respect Minnesotans privacy and civil liberties?
The group known as the SF 2725 Work Group met last fall. Their proceedings, material collected, and their report is available through the link/BCA website. Bottom line is the work group came to a general agreement on some issues, but on others they did not. "Key" issues such as how accountability and transparency is implemented, what is the trigger/standard that is used to collect "intelligence", among other points, there was no agreement.
So is GangNet really going Bye-Bye? No, it will just rear its head in another form and named something else with less public scrutiny, accountability, and transparency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)