Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

The state's talk about access is mostly talk

By STEVE BOUSQUET
Published July 10, 2004

I took Glenda Hood at her word. Silly me.

Florida's appointed secretary of state, besieged by critics for her agency's clumsy handling of a once-secret list of voters marked as possible felons, tried to spin things her way this week.

After complaining about news stories that reported thousands of people with clemency were targeted for disenfranchisement, Hood's office held what she described as a "tutorial" for reporters on the database. The choice of words seemed a bit condescending, but the idea was commendable.

A lot of reporters showed up at Mrs. Hood's elections classroom Tuesday.

"Please call us to get information, so that you can report accurately and fairly," Hood told the assembled reporters as the hourlong session came to a close Tuesday.

The next day, Hood's office did a flip-flop and agreed that 2,465 voters marked for possible deletion from the voter rolls could vote after all. They had registered to vote before receiving clemency and the department had insisted they register again.

Hood's office announced the change of heart in an e-mail at the end of the day Wednesday. That's a trick as old as government itself: bureaucrats wanting to give reporters as little time as possible to ask questions and seek reaction.

On Thursday morning, this newspaper asked for copies of e-mails between Hood and her senior staff, or with Gov. Jeb Bush's office, in an effort to get behind the canned statements her office was putting out. We wanted to know how Hood arrived at her initial decision, and what prompted the change.

This is Florida, remember? The whole country is watching to see if the state can run an election right this time, and the pressure on Hood is mounting. She was appointed by Bush to a post that was elected when Katherine Harris held it in 2000.

By the close of business Friday, not a single e-mail had been provided. State law allows a review of public records "by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions."

We're still waiting. In this age of instantaneous electronic communication, nothing is as slow-moving as a piece of paper moving from a state agency to the hands of a reporter.

The foot-dragging won't end until a newspaper hauls the state into a courtroom and a judge re-defines "reasonable" as just a wee bit shorter than the Ice Age.

On Jan. 30, the St. Petersburg Times requested documents on planned changes to the Medicaid program. The records arrived May 12. It was a broad request, but does that seem reasonable to you?

It's not just reporters who get the run-around.

Two weeks ago, John Van Gieson, a media strategist, hoped to persuade Bush to sign a property rights bill. He asked for e-mails and letters to see the arguments the other side was using.

Two weeks have come and gone, and Van Gieson still has nothing.

"They were very nice and very polite," Van Gieson said of Bush's staffers. "Now, it's kind of moot."

Bush vetoed the bill Thursday.

I don't get it. Bush skillfully uses technology to keep a dialogue going with Floridians. He taps out e-mail replies on the fly, as aides download a fresh batch of incoming messages at brief airport stops.

I've just reread Bush's policy on prompt handling of public records requests. His Code of Ethics for all state employees requires that "access to public records and open meetings is provided without delay." The policy says: "When the public is denied the right to know, governmental accountability may be sacrificed."

You know what they need in this administration?

A public records tutorial.

- Steve Bousquet is the Times' deputy capital bureau chief.

[Last modified July 9, 2004, 23:55:18]