At 05:38 PM 1/27/99 -0800, steve wrote:
>Agreed.
>
>Steve Page
>
>>
>>We shouldn't allow this move toward private self-regulation to cause us
>>to lose the hard-won gains of openness and transparency guaranteed by the
>>Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps we'll need an exception for private
>>personnel matters, but everything related to policy-making ought to go up
>>on the web and stay up.
>>
>>I think there ought to be consensus on this. Anyone disagree?
>>
>> -- Bret
There's a distinction here that ought not to be lost. The FOIO relates to
getting
access to information tucked away in the files of governmental agencies.
Although
one would want to review the actual statute, private groups that are not
governmental
agencies would not ordinarily be subject to the FOIO, even if they have a
Federal
charter: e.g., the Red Cross or the Boy Scouts. The status of "contracting
agencies"
likely falls somewhere in between. Whatever may be thought to be a
desirable feature
in a "private group," such as "openness," one should be careful in calling
on the FOIO
as authority (an example, yes) that shows any actual legal right to
information. It seems
one should carve such rights into the authority-granting document itself.
Bill Lovell
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
