The Changes of the Season
Public Access is for Officials Too, INDOT's Cars Program and Raw Data, and Who has In-Custody-Death reports?
Hello again. Fall is here! And that means cooler weather, beautiful colors, and lots of rain! So grab your sweater, make a cup of tea, and join us for the latest edition of ICOG’s Open Doors. We are excited that you’re here.
📰 Current Open Government News
If available, we’ll quickly highlight a recent news article or two at the top of each installment of Open Doors. If you know of any interesting story, please share it with us at info@indianacog.org.
In this installment, Ron Wilkins (Journal and Courier) covers the lack of public access between the Fairfield Township Trustee Taletha Cole and the Fairfield Township Board.
LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Fairfield Township Trustee Taletha Coles continues to ignore Indiana laws that require trustees attend township board meetings and make public documents open for inspection, township board members said.
Board members met Thursday morning, and Coles did not attend, despite the township having a looming deadline to approve a 2022 spending plan.
[…]
The Journal & Courier asked Coles about her lack of attendance at board meetings, her denial to present public records to the board, her proposed 2022 budget, and her complaint to the public access counselor. She did not respond.
You can learn more by reading the full article here: Fairfield Township trustee Taletha Coles refuses to attend meetings or work with board
💿🎧📝 Bytes, Bits, and Minutes
ICOG highlights interesting datasets and records either proactively released and freely available or obtained through an Access to Public Records Act request.
If you need to get ahead of any highway information before you travel across the state or want to analyze various dimensions of INDOT data, check out INDOT’s Cars Program.
The web application provides all sorts of valuable traffic GIS information:
The various pages of information all serve their data via JSON, so you can easily download and analyze in your favorite system. Here is an example to the Report Events JSON.
The camera map shows you one of the camera systems along various highways in Indiana. Is this the only network of cameras? Let us know!
Please note, when viewing the cameras, the image may be weeks old. Check the timestamp. If the date includes 1970, the feed may be live, but the camera’s date and time have been reset due to a power issue.
There is even a Future Info feature that shows various reports, such as planned road and lane closures, that are also available. At the time we tested, the cameras were not part of this feature. 😂
The Indiana Coalition for Open Government is committed to creating dialogues with public data. Write us a note about your interesting bits, bytes, and minutes: info@indianacog.org
✏️ Pro-Tips for Sharpening Your Requests
ICOG highlights interesting Public Access Counselor opinions and other tips provided by the open government community.
21-FC-100: Alleged Violation of the Access to Public Records Act by the Indiana Dep't. of Correction
A background from the opinion:
On May 27, 2021, Ryan Martin (Complainant), a reporter with the IndyStar, filed a public records request with the IDOC seeking “In Custody Death Reporting Forms” for nine counties during specific years. Martin followed up with IDOC through email three times over the next month regarding the request.
Martin was on the receiving end of a record custodian argument, a they-don’t-submit-it-to-us argument, and an if-we-had-it-we-still-couldn’t-release-it argument from the Indiana Department of Correction.
Martin filed a formal complaint against IDOC in July of 2021. In IDOC’s defense, they stated this curious justification for their behavior:
IDOC argues that the denial was justified because IDOC does not have a statutory obligation to create the form, nor is there an affirmative duty for the counties to fill it out and submit it in the event of an in-custody death. It also considers the form as part of the offender’s medical information and nondisclosable.
Notably, IDOC does not deny the forms exist or that it was in fact received, only that it is not required to do so.
Britt goes on to remind everyone the language and spirit APRA, including that it affords certain exemptions for government bodies to exercise nondisclosure.
In the advisory opinion, we learn that the form in question was made by staff at IDOC and “calls for little actual medical information other than a few questions at the bottom.”
Britt continues by also confronting IDOC’s too-difficult-to-retrieve excuse:
If, however, IDOC does have the forms, it cannot simply pass public records responsibility to the counties as a matter of course. This may be the case for some requests; however, Martin has had difficulty confirming reliable information from the counties. As IDOC is the clearinghouse for the forms that are submitted, he contends IDOC is the best agency for responsive records.
This office agrees under these circumstances. If the forms do not exist, so be it. IDOC does not bear responsibility for proving the existence of a negative. But IDOC does not make that argument here. Instead, it claims the forms would be too difficult to retrieve “due to the wide variety in which this information is received.” Either there’s a form or there isn’t for the counties in question. Martin has not asked for any compilation or aggregation of information.
And Britt continues his analysis with addressing IDOC’s medical exemption claim:
After review of the In Custody Death Reporting Form, very little of the content appears to be restricted under those rules. The portion that is can easily be redacted. Even so, “[c]ertain information normally considered restricted or confidential may be considered unrestricted information if there is a compelling public interest in disclosure.”210 IAC 1-6-2(1). In custody death would presumably be of public interest in certain circumstances.
In any case, a coroner’s report, disclosable under Indiana Code section 36-2-14-18 would contain much of the information on the reporting form, including a conclusion as to the probable cause of death; the probable manner of death; and the probable mechanism of death.
Britt concludes:
Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the Indiana Department of Correction must release the In Custody Death Reporting Forms if they have been provided to the IDOC from the counties in question.
Lessons: There’s a lot to learn in this opinion:
Research if other records disclose similar information (like the coroner’s report in this case) and use them as an alternative request object.
Challenge exemptions that don’t make sense. If there are rules that allow for updates in information classification, request that they be applied in your case.
Research copies of the form, related information, and the processes for its filing.
Just because more than one entity may retain the same record, you cannot be burdened with requesting the information from each and every one. A custodian of a record is a custodian.
Always assert your right to partial disclosure. Indiana permits restricted information to be redacted and the remaining information to be released.
It would be interesting to hear how these conversations may have gone both at IDOC and at the County level. Do you have any experience in requesting information from a State Agency that is submitted by a County Agency? How did those request and release paths differ?
We found a recent October 12th story involving Ryan Martin, Tim Evans, and this IDOC data:
By the numbers: The most important findings revealed by IndyStar jail deaths investigation
If you know of any articles or other information related to In Custody Death Reporting Forms in Indiana, please share them below or by writing us.
Do you have a favorite Public Access Counselor opinion [
advisory
or
informal
]? Share it in the comments below or e-mail us at info@indianacog.org