← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

← Back to messages

Freedom of Information access to BaseCamp communications and records

Posted by Frank Burdick on 21 Jan, 2014
Category: Category 1 - SSWWEP Questions and Presentations

Previous studies and task forces related to the santitary and surface water, have utilized Consultants and Construction Managers.  Specific data or other information was requested from these past studies and not provided by the City.  Efforts were made to obtain these records from the City, utilizing the Freedom of Information Act.  (FOIA).  These efforts failed because the City allowed these records to remain in the files of the Consultants/Construction Managers,  and NOT the City.  Hence the records did not fall within the access of FOIA and remain concealed.

Now that the SSWWE CAC has changed most all communication, files, and other data TO the Basecamp website located at the OHM network site, will all of these communications, files, and other data be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?   

In your response, please consider the May Public meeting presentation that implied that transparent communications was a "hallmark" to the process proposed by OHM and it's subcontractor, Project Innovations.


Comments

Kathy Boris on 21 Jan, 2014:

Frank makes an important point.  In my opinion, all documents related to the workings of SSWWEP should become City of Ann Arbor documents, so that the public will have access to this information now and in the future.  There should also be some assurance as to how long these documents will be kept.  Maybe there is already a city policy regarding how long documents related to citizen advisory groups must be kept and in what manner they are made available to the public.   Does anyone know?   (I was very surprised when Abigail Elias (sp?) indicated that some correspondence with the MDEQ from just 12 years ago probably was no longer available.   Did I understand her correctly?)
kb

Judy Hanway on 22 Jan, 2014:

I agree with Kathy and Frank. I think that all of the SSWWEP documents should be accessible to the public now and in the future. 

Charlie Fleetham on 24 Jan, 2014:

Regarding the question of whether or not BaseCamp is subject to FOIA, per a conversation with Abigail Elias, as  a private website, BaseCamp is not subject to FOIA provisions. 

Judy Hanway on 24 Jan, 2014:

I restate my opinion that the recently completed Survey and BaseCamp information should be made public.

Charlie Fleetham on 24 Jan, 2014:

I believe that BaseCamp needs to be off limits to FOIA requests. It provides a venue for the CAC to express their opinions without fears about legal actions/scrutiny etc.

Frank Burdick on 25 Jan, 2014:

Mr. Fleetham, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN THIS MANNER. This is a Public CAC concerning the Public issues. You obviously DO NOT LIVE IN ANN ARBOR.  What gives you the permission to conceal all current and future documements from the Citizens of Ann Arbor?
There is nothing that anyone has written or will write that can not be open to Public scrutiny.

Your position is TOTALLY unacceptable, however, right in line with the writings in your book!

My next step is to send this entire email string to my Council Reps and demand that all BaseCamp documents become subject to FOIA or that use of BaseCamp be canceled with the CAC volunteers, CAC Team, and consultant. 

What happened to the transparent cummunication hallmark?!!  

Unacceptable.

Charlie Fleetham on 25 Jan, 2014:

The question that was asked was whether or not the BaseCamp is subject to FOIA.  According to Abigail it is not, and that is what I reported.    I also said that   I believe that the CAC is and would be well served by having a site to discuss this very complex and emotional issue without fear of public scrutiny.  That said, the decision of having or not having BaseCamp is up to the CAC and the City PM.  Obviously the site is a project site, not a public interaction site.  If the CAC wants to change this process, I would appreciate hearing from the rest of the members.  Nick Hutchinson and I were discussing this very topic this afternoon and decided we would raise it the next CAC meeting.  

Thanks. 
Charlie

Frank Burdick on 25 Jan, 2014:

Why don't you do another poll....?

Frank Burdick on 25 Jan, 2014:

To All Citizen Volunteers:

Please read the attached meeting minutes from the SSO 2000 task force and the clear intent to conceal info from the Public.  Is this what you want to happen with our current SSWWE CAC?  

The issue is not just about inner communications within the group. It has more to do with "work product."  Do you want all of the questions and responses to remain inaccessible to the Public?  Is this transparent?

A current member of this SSWWE CAC was also on the 2000 SSO Task Force.  What insight can this member bring to this issue?

Kathy Boris on 25 Jan, 2014:

I agree with Judy Hanway on this too. All the information that has been
made available to the CAC must also be available to the public.

kb

Kathy Boris on 25 Jan, 2014:

OK, maybe I’m naive. Was this an effort to protect the name and address
information of the survey respondents?

Joe Conen on 25 Jan, 2014:

I believe that the meetings and their documents (summaries,agendas, etc),
as well as other documents we produce, such as the survey and the OHM
report should be public. I do not believe the conversation threads in
basecamp should be public or subject to FOIA. As far as I am concerned,
they are not a product, but are informal views of the members.

Charlie Fleetham on 25 Jan, 2014:

Regarding making information available to the public that has/is made available to the CAC, we have been doing this and will continue to do this.  Regarding  making the Q&A log available, we have discussed this and thought that monthly dumps on the SSWWE website were adequate.  But what is the CAC desire on the log?  Weekly? Or as it changes?

Regarding comments about CAC members about the data, I believe that BaseCamp offers a useful site for a give and take conversation about the data. This is already occurring.  Do CAC members want all CAC comments made available to the public?  We can do this easily by exporting BaseCamp files to the project website.  Daily? Weekly?  Your thoughts?

Peter Houk on 25 Jan, 2014:

I will point out that as a member of the CAC, you have access to all of the answers and information that are stored in Basecamp.  

I have not agreed to keep any information secret.  I doubt that the other CAC members have either. 

If you see something that you think should be shared, I don't see anything stopping you from sharing it.  In fact, I don't see anything that would stop a CAC member from copying everything in Basecamp and giving it to a neighbor or a reporter.  

My proposal: 

We take a vote and agree on one of three options.

1. Everything in Basecamp stays in Basecamp
2. Categories of items in Basecamp are made public and everything else stays only in Basecamp
3.  Everything stays only in Basecamp until the CAC releases it's report and recommendations, then everything is made public. 
(Somebody jump in and add a 4th here if you want.)

We are the CAC.  On how the CAC is run, we answer only to ourselves.  But let's make the decision and then put it behind us.  We need to address procedural issues like this one, but we can't dwell on them.  Instead we need to be concentrating on how to stop sewer backups during heavy rain. 

Thanks

Pete    

 
   

Charlie Fleetham on 25 Jan, 2014:

Regarding keeping information secret, no one on the project team has ever suggested keeping project data away from the public or using BaseCamp to conceal information.  However,  I believe it is appropriate to all folks to review draft reports before distribution to the public.  That said, Lori and I scanned the project library last week, identified some documents that needed to be uploaded and the City has done so.  (Note - we need to correct the year date for the Jan 9 meeting and note that the video covers the last 90 minutes only - we will do this on Monday.)

Regarding Peter Houk's suggestion, it seconds a suggestion made by Frank Burdick last night.  On Monday, I will distribute a Doodle poll on this topic to ascertain the CAC's preferences.

Peter Houk on 25 Jan, 2014:

Right now I think I am going to cast my vote for option 3 or something similar.  In my experience, problem solving like this is usually not a straight line.  Instead you end up at the right place after working through a few wrong turns.  If every detour into the weeds is written up on Mlive, then people will be unlikely to suggest the kinds of unusual ideas and creative compromises that we need.  

Nonetheless, the information should be public eventually.  That should happen only after we make our decision.  And, if anyone wants real time access to our decision making process, all he has to do is join the CAC.  

Thanks

Pete
  

Kathy Boris on 26 Jan, 2014:

This seems reasonable. And it’s a compromise of sorts. kb

Peter Houk on 26 Jan, 2014:

Going back to Kathy's question about protecting names and addresses, it appears to me that all of the talk of protecting data from FOIA in the SSO document relates only to ensuring anonymity for survey respondents.  

Many people won't want to answer a survey that isn't kept anonymous, or would answer it differently if they knew their friends, neighbors and city staff could read it later.  To make sure they receive good data, the surveyors promise anonymity.  You can't promise anonymity and then give out the names, addresses and opinions of respondents to the first person with a FOIA request.  

To get good data, they found a way to protect responses from FOIA. 

I am OK with that practice and I don't think that the raw, personally identifiable data from our survey should ever be released either.  As far as I know, it's not here on our Basecamp site and shouldn't be.