Transparency Training is for Everyone
Indiana State Auditor's Transparency Portal and a Mayor’s office in Jasonville that does not keep any public records on site
Hello again. Maybe for the first time. How are you today? Welcome.
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.
This week’s article is about the The South Shore Convention and Visitors Bureau board saga being covered by Joseph S. Pete at the Northwest Indiana Times. It was published on June 24th, 2021 and there have been many follow-on articles you can read as well. This one discusses Open Door Law’s intersection of discussions in Executive Sessions and Public Meetings:
SSCVA's previous attorney, James G. Magrames, wrote a memo Batistatos recently shared in an email with the board expressing the opinion that it violated Indiana's Open Door Law by discussing the loan program in a closed executive session last month.
"In researching this issue, there is statutory authority and case law to invalidate the board's decision to disburse the funds, should it vote to do so," he wrote. "The fact that a more detailed discussion was held in the regular meeting of the board as part of the public meeting may not cure the defect of the improper topic discussed during the executive session, but may be considered in the balance of these factors. As the decision to invalidate the action of the board would be discretionary on the part of the trial court, it would be a matter indeterminate until an action is filed, and a judge issues a ruling. A challenger would have 30 days to pursue such an action from the time it is discovered or should be discovered."
You can read the full article here: SSCVA board, tourism leader spar over grant program, law firm
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.
Who doesn’t enjoy reading and discussing a financial dataset in July? And, there’s plenty for you to discuss with the Indiana State Auditor’s Indiana Transparency Portal (which transparency portal is your favorite?—tell us below)
If you haven’t used the Auditor’s ITP, then you are missing out on some very informative and enjoyable sets of data: financial reports, spreadsheets, contracts, visualizations. And, of course, the Quantity Purchase Agreements.
Referred to as QPAs by the Auditor, they describe the dataset as follows:
The table below, listing all current QPAs administered by the Department of Administration Procurement Division, is organized alphabetically by commodity descriptions and contains the QPA number, availability for use by cities, towns and other governmental/political subdivisions, contact name, and any amendments to the original QPA agreement (if applicable).
With this data you can easily find out who has the quantity purchase agreements for body armor (U.S. Uniform & Supply), library cards (ID Card, Inc), road salt (The Detroit Salt Co, LLC), and more. This information can be used to request information in your own community. For example, to better understand the relationship of local dollars being spent with these particular vendors.
When you have a lot of data, a flood of questions come to mind. We have not found a visualization for the QPAs, but the Auditor’s office did make this dashboard of the general vendor data:
And we could go on. But we won’t. At the moment. We will continue exploring the Auditor’s Transparency Portal in a future installments of Open Doors.
In the meantime, what types of questions would you ask of this data? Any interesting stories you can share? We’d love to hear from you.
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-57: Alleged Violation of the Access to Public Records Act by the City of Jasonville
The recent 21-FC-57 opinion holds a classic narrative we are all probably too familiar with: a government body receives a request for records it does not maintain and either does not respond or responds without providing civic assistance for how to complete the request.
In this particular version, there is another curious element: the Jasonville’s Mayor’s office claims it doesn’t maintain any public records on site:
From Public Access Counselor Luke Britt’s Opinion:
There is not a dispute that Morse served a public records request on the Mayor’s office, only that the Mayor was not the custodian of the records.
Britt continues (emphasis added by ICOG):
It is unclear whether Mayor Watters ever explained to the Complainant what the “proper channels” are for requesting a public record from the City of Jasonville. Likewise, the Mayor did not elucidate that process for this office, merely claiming that the Mayor’s office does not keep any public records on site.
As is typical of the Office, Britt reminds everyone that sharing information with the public is an essential function of a representative government:
The Access to Public Records Act states that “(p)roviding persons with information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the outline duties of public officials and employees, whose duty it is to provide the information.”
Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1. The City of Jasonville is a public agency for purposes of APRA; and therefore, subject to the law’s requirements.
And in that spirit, Britt brings up the but-you-know-what-documents-I-am-talking-about argument regarding the Mayor’s knowledge of who is the custodian of such records.
Therefore the Mayor’s office, at the very least, should have directed Mr. Morse where to submit a request if the document is germane to the city’s public business.
Even if it was in another location – a clerk-treasurer’s or council president’s office for example – surely the Mayor has an idea where the documents could be requested.
If you haven’t read the definition of a public record lately, it is good to be reminded (which Britt does regularly) that Indiana Code [IC 5-14-3-2(r)] is incredibly robust. As anyone who has dealt with a reasonable particularity dispute, hairs are usually split by other hairs.
At the start, everything is a public record because everything is done on behalf or in the interest of the Public*:
(r) "Public record" means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics.
Britt continues:
Therefore to suggest a city executive does not keep any public records on site as a memorialization or documentation of public business is a position that does not sit well with this office. While the Mayor’s office may not keep a particular document immediately onhand, it has public records.
And the conclusion? Britt not only finds the City of Jasonville in violation of the Access to Public Records Act, but offers the City officials and staff an opportunity for education and training via the PAC Handbook (which ICOG assists with) and/or with the PAC office.
Lessons from PAC Advisory Opinion 21-FC-57: Many. At the request level, if you are new to the process, include a line:
If you are not the custodian of these records, can you please assist me with who is?
If the government body ignores it, you also have that request in your favor.
Sadly, the narrative that records are not maintained in certain offices and no further help is offered is consistently shared with the Indiana Coalition for Open Government as well.
Again, when making a request, asking for help in locating the custodian of records also provides some additional accountability if you receive this rebuttal.
Shoring up your requests provides an additional layer of accountability and pressure to the government body. We all want to encourage our government entities to fulfill their duty and provide the critical service of sharing information with Public.
ICOG is also happy to connect, engage, and educate members of the government on proactive transparency, public records stewardship, and any other topic related to the public’s right to know.
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
*Editor’s Note: Reclarified the definition of a public record.
Thank you for reading and sharing. What else would you like to see, learn, and discuss? We’d love to hear from you.