Jackson Free Press

I don't know how long this link will remain active, but here is the proposed settlement between The Clarion-Ledger and the city of Jackson.

Previous Comments

ID

172424

Comment

For anyone interested in reading the proposed settlement between The Clarion-Ledger and the city of Jackson, the link is here.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-04T13:30:36-06:00

ID

172425

Comment

Oopsies. The link first posted was actually to the complaint, not the settlement. Now it's fixed.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-04T13:49:05-06:00

ID

172426

Comment

A few points of interest. 1. Goliath agrees to waive collection of attorneys' fees. The $100 fine the law provides will be given to the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information. 2. If the city fails to respond to a request within 14 days, it will automatically lose the right to cite an exemption in the Public Records Act to justify refusing a release. In other words, they have to be on time or the record will be released even if the city thinks it has the right to withhold it. 3. When the city does refuse a request, it must refer to the section of the law that allows it to do so. This would put an end to the city's arbitrary declaration that "ComStat is for internal use only," for instance, because this does not make reference to the law. It does not make reference to the law because there is no such exemption. Those are the good parts of the proposed settlement, which makes no reference to Danks directing the city clerk's office. The glaring downside to the settlement is that it is narrow; it does not constitute an agreement between the city and the media in general. All it would require is that the city follow these procedures when dealing with The Clarion-Ledger. That is not acceptable.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-04T14:04:04-06:00

ID

172427

Comment

Agreed. See my comments under this story about my concerns about it. I'm sure it's clear to everyone involved that The Clarion-Ledger does not have the authority to negotiate how public-records requests are to be handled on behalf of the public or other media. The real riddle here, though, is that the city cannot treat different requesters differently. So, it strikes me that if they make some sort of deal that isn't exceptable with even one citizen or media outlet, then the whole thing may not be worth the paper it's printed on. Therefore, it would be very wise for the City Council to call for a public hearing on this, or convene a panel with a variety of representatives on it before they agree to a thing. If not, the legal mess may well just start all over again. I'm a bit surprised that the Ledger is handling it this way, frankly. Why don't they simply command that the law is followed?

Author

ladd

Date

2006-06-04T14:12:48-06:00

ID

172428

Comment

BTW, it wouldn't hurt for the council people to hear the concerns of citizens about this closed-door settlement. Personally, I don't trust Goliath and Danks to get this worked on all our behalf. Do y'all?

Author

ladd

Date

2006-06-04T14:14:29-06:00

ID

172429

Comment

Brian, do you read this complaint by Goliath to mean that they never filed a single records request with the city before January 2006? (And, yes, that was the month the Meridian judge all but released from the MBN lawsuit and suddenly their fortunes weren't tied up with Melton's. Yes, it could have been a coincidence that Goliath suddenly started acting sorta like a newspaper again. Surely, it could have.)

Author

ladd

Date

2006-06-04T14:16:26-06:00

ID

172430

Comment

It's possible that they might have filed records requests in the fall that were filled, but I very much doubt it. Moreover, their information requests don't really take off until April. Even then, they are relatively narrow in scope--most of them concern Wright and Recio and travel. They are so far behind us in making records requests and trying to get answers from this administration that it's pathetic. Why then should they draft the terms of the "new" open records policy?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-04T15:51:43-06:00

ID

172431

Comment

Right on. We don't need a "new" policy; we need the laws followed for everyone. There's not a whole lot to negotiate on that front. It feels weird that they're working on a "settlement" to me. There is one thing needed, and it's from the city: "Yes, we will follow the law." It almost feels like the Ledger is giving the city/Danks power by letting them offer "terms" of a settlement. There are no terms here. Obey. the. law.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-06-04T16:12:24-06:00

ID

172432

Comment

***It almost feels like the Ledger is giving the city/Danks power by letting them offer "terms" of a settlement. There are no terms here. Obey. the. law.*** <--ladd Bingo!, Donna. Because I don't like the fact that none (or not enough) of my state income tax dollars go to address issues that I strongly believe should be addressed, I'm just not going to follow the law and refuse to pay state income taxes. Will the State Tax Commission sit down with me (and/or my attorney) to negotiate a settlement to set forth the terms under which I might follow *settled law*? I think not. If the law is not going to be equitably and consistently applied, that law is meaningless. Thus, the settlement that should be recognized is the Open Records Act itself. Period. End of discussion.

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-06-04T17:36:40-06:00