Oklahoma Supreme Court supports public's need to know by not limiting personal information in court records

Oklahoma Supreme Court justices on Monday unanimously agreed not to ban complete dates of birth and street addresses from criminal and civil court records.

That's a surprise given the majority's ruling in late July denying public access to government employees' birth dates and worker identification numbers in personnel files. The majority said no valid public interest existed in knowing the information.

Just two months later, the court proposed requiring that filers remove all but the year from dates of birth, the street addresses from home addresses, the names of minor children, all but the last four digits of Social Security, drivers license, taxpayer identification and "other personal identification numbers" from court records in criminal and civil cases.

But the rule released Monday leaves complete dates of birth and street addresses in court records.

And it permits -- but doesn't require -- filers to keep confidential all but the last four digits in Social Security, taxpayer identification, financial account and driver's license numbers.

As Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor said in a concurrence:

This rule affirms the doctrine that (other than those sealed or closed by long-established law) every document filed with the Court Clerk is a public record. And this rule does not prohibit the inclusion of any information in any filed document.

Taylor's concurrence was joined by Justice Yvonne Kauger. She and Taylor had dissented in the government employees' date of birth ruling.

Under the rule released Monday, filers are responsible for following the guidelines. District court clerks are not responsible for reviewing documents for compliance. A document filed with the court clerk "become a public record as filed" even if it contains Social Security, taxpayer identification, financial account and driver's license numbers, dates of birth, street addresses "or other sensitive information."

The rule does not apply to felony, misdemeanor, traffic ticket or other cases where statutes or Court of Criminal Appeals rules "require the inclusion of the complete personal identifier number."

FOI Oklahoma Inc. and a number of other organizations and individuals had urged the court to reconsider its proposed limit on information in court records.

The court's decision Monday is a victory for the public's need to know in Oklahoma. The public has an interest in identifying elected officials, government employees and public figures involved in court actions. Oklahomans also have an interest in knowing more about the people in their lives, including those they do business with and those chosen to care for children.

The decision also helps individual Oklahomans distinguish themselves from others with similar names who are involved in court actions. In that way, the rule protects the privacy of Oklahomans.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

FOI Oklahoma asks state Supreme Courts to drop proposed rules that would limit information in court records

Oklahomans have until Friday to tell the state Supreme Court what they think of proposed rules that would ban personal information from court records.

Here is FOI Oklahoma's letter to the court:

Freedom of Information Oklahoma Inc. asks the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider its proposed rules that would remove personal information from criminal and civil court records.

FOI Oklahoma is a statewide organization founded in 1990 to educate the public on rights of the First Amendment and to promote openness in government. It has a broad based membership including journalists, attorneys, librarians and others interested in preserving the free flow of information.

The organization believes the court’s proposed rules are over broad and would negatively impact basic information that every citizen of the state should be able to access easily.

Especially chilling is the proposal to redact personal identification information. The public would lose its ability to track defendants in criminal and civil cases.

Although the court has said it does not want to limit access to court documents; that appears to be exactly what the proposed rules would do.

It is in the best interest of the public to have as much information available as possible. Erasing this information as proposed by the court would be a step back, not a step forward.

FOI Oklahoma endorses former Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s statement opposing any rule or legislation that limits the public’s right to know. Edmondson said that as a former prosecutor, having access to identification such as dates of birth on criminal court records is important.

FOI Oklahoma applauds the court’s work in making court records available electronically.
However, the organization feels removing personal identifiers from these records negates any positive aspect of electronic records.

FOI Oklahoma hopes the court will recognize the public’s right to full access of this information far outweighs all other concerns.

Sincerely,

Bryan Dean, President, FOI Oklahoma
Staff Writer, The Oklahoman

Reactions to state Supreme Court ruling blocking public access to government employees' identification numbers and birth dates in their personnel files

Reactions to the state Supreme Court's ruling that public access to government employees' birth dates and identification numbers would serve no valid public interest but would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

• Schaad Titus, an attorney for the Tulsa World:
  

  We are very disappointed, as we feel date-of-birth information is a fundamental tool to the media to distinguish one public agency employee from any other person. We respectfully believe the court misapplied the balancing standard and the extreme public interest the press has in accurately distinguishing the public agency employee from any other person such as Jim Smith who committed a crime.

• Joe Worley, Tulsa World executive editor, said the ruling is disappointing because it "makes new law."
  

  With date-of-birth information, the Tulsa World is able to confirm or rule out the identity of people accused of crimes. Without that information about public employees, Oklahomans don't know who is working in the government that they are paying for.
  
  The state of Oklahoma is selling date-of-birth information about public employees but won't release that same information to the public.

• Kelly Dyer Fry, editor of The Oklahoman and vice president of news for OPUBCO Communications Group:
  

  It's not just a question of using dates of birth for identification, but also for misidentification. If average citizens run their names through the sex offender registry, they might be surprised to find someone on the list with the same name. Birth dates can quickly sort out who's who. I respectfully disagree with the court's decision.

• M. Scott Carter, president, Oklahoma Professional Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists:
  

  We are disappointed by this ruling. This ruling suggests that state employees have a greater right to privacy than the average citizen.
  
  We feel this ruling is a setback for transparency efforts within Oklahoma government. On too many occasions, the spirit and strength of the Oklahoma Open Meeting and Open Record Act have been chipped away over concerns about an invasion of privacy.
  
  In their ruling a majority of the court said they “could not fathom an instance where this information could be used by the public to ensure the government is properly performing its function.”
  
  We disagree.
  
  Oklahomans need transparency in their government. Further, being able to use a birth date to correctly identify a state worker – who could be making or enforcing policy that would have a profound impact on residents – is an absolute necessity for both the public and media professionals.
  
  In the future, we hope the Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court will consider the vital role the news media plays in ensuring Oklahoma government remains transparent and accessible to the general public.

• Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association, said the Supreme Court expanded privacy protections for state employees at the expense of transparency in government.
  

  It's ironic that private citizens are required to give our information to the government to vote or drive, but the same information about state employees is off limits. Now government will have everything about us, but we'll have nothing about them.

• Sterling Zearley, executive director of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association:
  

  This is a great victory for OPEA and state employees. The Association followed through on this critical issue all the way to the Supreme Court because we believed state employees, who dedicate their lives to public service, should not have their private information released to the press or other individuals.
  
  OPEA was concerned that an employee’s birth date could be the missing puzzle piece in both financial and health care identity fraud. In addition, the safety of corrections officers, child welfare workers, and other employees who work with the public could be put in jeopardy.

• Randy Terrill, Republican state representative from Moore:
  

  I believe in openness and transparency in government and that any data related to the job performance of an employee should be public record. However, birthdates and personal identification numbers in no way relate to an employee’s performance in an official capacity. The blanket release of personal data simply does not satisfy the test set forth by the court today.
  
  We did try to work with the Oklahoma Press Association and other media entities to craft a reasonable compromise to provide access to state employees’ information under certain circumstances when reasonable suspicion existed, but those efforts were rebuffed. Today, the 'all or nothing' approach they pursued has left them with nothing. It is my hope that they will be less rigid and dogmatic in the future when someone makes a good-faith, reasonable effort to negotiate a compromise.

Oklahoma Supreme Court denies public access to government employees' birth dates and worker identification numbers, says no valid public interest in knowing the information

Public access to government employees' birth dates and worker identification numbers would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

(Okla. Pub. Employees Ass’n v. Oklahoma Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68). Opinion begins on Page 14.)

In coming to that conclusion, the seven-justice majority found no value in the public knowing the information but accepted as gospel the claim that access would cause identity theft and other harms.

"The information requested here could result in cases of identity theft and compromise of government computer systems yet bring little, if any, information to public attention which would enlighten Oklahoman citizens as to how their government runs, performs, or spends their tax dollars," they said. (Id. ¶ 3)

"There is simply no instance in which we can fathom how such information would advance the public's interest in assuring that the government is properly performing its function. (Id. ¶ 35)

"The purpose of openness in government is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct. (Id. ¶ 37)

"Rather, government agencies and the courts have a special obligation to protect the public's interest in individual privacy by acknowledging that public records are being harvested for personal information about individuals, contributing to a surge in identify theft, consumer profiling, and the development of a stratified society were individuals are pigeonholed according to the electronic trail they leave of transactions that disclose personal details." (Id.)

The case revolves around which information in a government employee's personnel file may be exempted under the state Open Records Act. A public body may keep confidential those personnel records "where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy such as employee evaluations, payroll deductions, employment applications submitted by persons not hired by the public body, and transcripts from institutions of higher education maintained in the personnel files of certified public school employees." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.7(A)(2))

In a one-paragraph dissent, Justice Yvonne Kauger, joined by Chief Justice Steven W. Taylor, saw the case as "a matter of statutory construction."

Kauger noted that although the Legislature had amended the personnel exemption three times since 1985, "it had never chosen to include the date of birth."

"If the Legislature desires to do so, it certainly can," Kauger wrote.

A 2009 attorney general had said the birth dates of government employees were presumed to be public information when contained in their personnel files and should be released upon request. Officials could refuse to release the information only if they determined that disclosing the birth date would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 11)

Then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson told The Oklahoman:

My [personal] opinion is that an agency is going to have difficulty claiming the exemption as a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. My view is that the conditions under which birth dates would be confidential would be rare.

Shortly after issuing the 2009 opinion, Edmondson released the birth dates of his employees.

In the opinion, Edmondson said public officials must balance the interests involved, "weighing the public's right of access to the records, which the Legislature has declared is substantial, against the employees' interests in nondisclosure." As part of that balancing,

A public body may determine that the ORA's public policy raises the question, 'How does disclosing an employee's birth date allow citizens to know what the government (or a particular employee) is up to, and whether he or she is properly discharging his or her duties?' If the purpose of the ORA is to 'ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power,' the operative question is 'how will knowing an employee’s birth date assist citizens in the exercise of that political power?’ (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 10)

On Tuesday, Justices Tom Colbert, Joseph M. Watt, James R. Winchester, James E. Edmondson, John F. Reif, Douglas Combs and Noma Gurich found that the balance between public interest and employee privacy "must tip in favor of privacy." (2011 OK 68, ¶ 35)

"We determine that when the balancing test is applied to the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of birth dates and employee identification numbers of State employees 'would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy,'" they said. (Id. ¶ 39)

They gave no weight to the public's interest in knowing the information. (Id. ¶ 35)

"Although state employees' privacy interests may be diminished somewhat by taking a position in an agency subject to public scrutiny, they do not surrender all privacy rights by taking a government employment," the majority said. "However, it is important to note that the policy of public disclosure is purposed to serve the public interest and not to satisfy the public's curiosity. Here, the information sought serves no valid public interest." (Id.)

But open government advocates fear that exempting government employees' birth dates and identification numbers from their personnel files would severely hamper the ability of Oklahomans to know and be fully informed about their government. State law already exempts public employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers.

By barring access to the birth dates and employee identification numbers, the court has made it virtually impossible for the public to determine if government employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions. The public also will find it virtually impossible to track workers across government jobs.

But the seven justices discounted the ability of the press and public "to identify one state worker from another" as "too 'narrow and limited' on the public interest scale to tip the balance of interests in favor of disclosure." (Id. ¶ 34)

The justices also shrugged off the fact that birth dates are available in other public documents, such as voter registration records.

"The fact that information may be available to the public in some form or from another source does not dissolve the individual's interest in controlling the dissemination of information regarding personal matters," they said. (Id. ¶ 34)

In contrast, Drew Edmondson had publicly said it would be difficult to contend that birth dates are private when they are found in a number of public records.

Instead, the justices placed a great deal of weight on the fear of identity theft, saying:

Since September 11, 2001, the ramifications of identity theft have proven much more grave than previously thought. Identify theft, a huge problem in financial fraud, now has implications for national security.

The growing problem of identify theft is facilitated when birth dates are combined with other personal information. Simply combining the release of a person's age along with other factors may make the individual vulnerable to those targeting a certain age range for scams.

With both a name and a birth date, one can obtain information about: an individual's criminal record; arrest record (which may not include disposition of the charges); driving record; state of origin; political party affiliation; social security number; current and past addresses; civil litigation records; liens; property owned; credit history; financial accounts; and quite possibly, information about an individual's complete medical and military histories; and insurance and investment portfolios. (Id. ¶ 32)

But a data privacy expert speaking at FOI Oklahoma Inc.'s 2010 Sunshine Week conference said keeping birth dates secret won't help protect workers' identities or safety because the information already is available elsewhere.

"What I would tell them is stop trying to shut the barn door after the horses are gone. It's a lack of understanding by policy makers to what an effective countermeasure is to identity theft," said Richard J.H. Varn, chief information officer for the city of San Antonio and executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access.

Varn also emphasized that public records are not a source of information for identity thieves. However, exempting the birth dates from public records does create a privacy problem, he said.

When public identifiers are not made public, it is nearly impossible to distinguish among people with the same name. It leads to more false positives and false negatives, Varn told the National Freedom of Information Coalition conference in 2009.

For example, when The Oklahoman compared a state payroll data to the state sex offender registry, the newspaper found 778 state employees who shared first and last names with registered sex offenders.

"Without dates of birth, which are included in the sex offender registry, it is impossible to determine whether these workers may be sex offenders," the newspaper noted.

For years, The Oklahoman and Tulsa World have received birth dates of public employees. In 2010, for example, Oklahoma City Public Schools released birth dates for more than 5,000 district employees in response to The Oklahoman's open records request.

And the state of Oklahoma has made tens of millions of dollars selling personal information, including birth dates and other personal information of all state drivers, The Oklahoman and Tulsa World reported last year.

Where are the incidences of these records being used to steal people's identities?

Instead of relying upon facts, the seven justices emphasized that the Legislature had intended to create "a non-exclusive list of information" whose release would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy when it created the personnel exemption to the Open Records Act. (Id. ¶ 39)

However, they ignored that legislators had not exempted birth dates when they blocked public access to government employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers. And for the past two sessions, legislators rejected attempts to add birth dates to the list of exempted information.

The justices, instead, chose to add birth dates to the list themselves. That's called judicial activism: When a court takes the opportunity to solve what it perceives as a social problem rather than relying upon the legislative branch to do so.

In this case, the seven justices see public access to personal information in government records as a social problem. But their decision is based on their subjective fears rather than facts. By adding birth dates to the list of exempted information, they did what the elected representatives of the people had chosen not to do.

To find no valid public interest in access to the government employees' birth dates and identification numbers is nonsensical and insulting to the public's intelligence.

The ruling on Tuesday is a serious blow to the public's ability to act as a watchdog of its government's activities. The court's reasoning is an affront to the public's right to know and be fully informed about its government.

For more background on the case, click here.

Read reactions to the ruling.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Terrill bill exempts public employee ID. numbers, birth dates from Open Records Act, restricts access to OHP dash cam recordings when most needed, allows DPS to charge more for records

Government employees' identification numbers and birth dates would be exempted from the state Open Records Act, under a bill filed by Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore.

Terrill failed to close off the information last legislative session.

His legislation this year, House Bill 2097, includes an emergency clause, meaning that it would take effect immediately after being signed by the governor. Getting the bill signed by Gov. Mary Fallin, however, could be another hurdle for Terrill.

As a gubernatorial candidate last spring, Fallin said she would veto legislation exempting state and local government employees' birth dates from personnel files.

The Republican also signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge in which she promised "to support at every opportunity the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government so that they can efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."

Exempting government employees' birth dates and identification numbers would severely hamper the ability of Oklahomans to know and be fully informed about their government. The public would find it virtually impossible to determine if government employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions. The public also would find it virtually impossible to track workers across government jobs.

Terrill's attempt to exempt the information last session became intertwined with legislation originally intended to restore public access to the dash cam videos of Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers. So it has again.

HB 2097 also keeps OHP recordings closed during "an ongoing criminal or internal investigation to which the video or audio recording is relevant."

It also would require the Department of Public Safety to censor "all content which depicts, expressly or implicitly, the death of any person."

The bill also would allow DPS to charge $1 for the first page of a record and 25 cents for subsequent pages of a report. It sets the fee for copies of DPS videos and still images at $50.

In addition to Terrill's bill, access to the birth dates and employee identification numbers is being fought over in the courts.

In December 2009, then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued a formal opinion that government employees' birth dates in their personnel files are presumed open. Officials may refuse to release the information only if they determine that disclosing the birth date would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” that outweighs the public interest in disclosure, Edmondson said. (2009 OK AG 33, ¶ 11)

Edmondson said public bodies must decide each case individually and may not enact policies blocking access to all employee dates of birth.

Last spring, the Oklahoma Public Employees Association filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the state Office of Personnel Management from releasing state workers' birth dates to The Oklahoman.

Oklahoma County Judge Bryan C. Dixon allowed The Oklahoman to intervene as a defendant and FOI Oklahoma, Tulsa World, KWTV, KOTV, the Oklahoma Press Association and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to file briefs in support of the public's right to the information.

Dixon also granted requests by the Oklahoma State Troopers Association and the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety to join with the Oklahoma Public Employees Association.

In late September, Dixon agreed with the balancing approach set forth in Edmondson’s opinion. However, Dixon said, in effect, that state employees were not entitled to individually challenge the disclosure of their birth dates by their state agencies. (Okla. Pub. Employees Ass’n v. Oklahoma Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. CJ-2010-2623 (Okla. Co. Dist. Ct.) (Sept. 21, 2010))

“The employing agencies shall not give notice or conduct a hearing as to individual employees on the issue of whether this is an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” Dixon said.

He also ruled that employee identification numbers were not subject to disclosure.

In October, the employees association and the newspapers appealed Dixon's ruling to the state Supreme Court.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications

Newspaper asks judge to lift order stopping release of state workers' birth dates; database editor shows DOBs, personal info readily available on Web

The Oklahoman on Thursday asked a judge to lift a temporary restraining order preventing the release of government workers' dates of birth and to order the state to provide the information.

Oklahoma County Judge Bryan Dixon in early April granted the order sought by the Oklahoma Public Employees Association and the Oklahoma State Troopers Association.

(See CJ-2010-2623, Oklahoma Public Employees Association v. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management)

OPEA officials have argued that release of the information poses a serious threat of identity theft despite contradictory opinions from privacy experts and the OPEA's inability to provide examples of public records being used to commit identity theft.

In the newspaper's request for a summary judgment, The Oklahoman noted that various government agencies have provided it with birth dates of public employees for the past 10 years.

An attorney general opinion in December said government employee birth dates are presumed open unless the public body can demonstrate that the employee’s privacy outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

In support of the trooper association's request to join OPEA as a plaintiff was an affidavit by Russell Knoke, second vice president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association, expressing concerns that releasing birth dates could endanger the lives of troopers and their families.

At an April press conference, Knoke said:

Our biggest concern is family and personal safety, the threat represented by an aggrieved member of the public one of our trooper’s may have dealt with in the past. To simply dump all troopers’ birth dates out there without regard to their personal safety is not acceptable.

Knoke seems unaware that the information is already available to the entire world -- a point made clear in The Oklahoman's evidence supporting a summary judgment.

In less than five minutes on the Internet, database editor Paul Monies found Knoke's DOB, home address, home phone number and other personal information.

On the Oklahoma State Troopers Association website, for example, Monies learned:

Russell graduated from the 39th academy in 1982. The areas in which he has worked include, Troop L Rogers County, Inola, and Troop L Rogers County, Catoosa. He currently is assigned to Troop S out of Sallisaw in Sequoyah County.

He graduated from Sallisaw High School and from Oklahoma State University with a bachelor’s of science degree.

Russell is married to his wife, Debbie, and has two sons, Tyler and Max.

On the AnyWho site, Monies found Knoke's home address and phone number.

Monies learned Knoke's birth date from birthdetails.com.

Monies verified the information by using Knoke's voter registration records maintained by the Oklahoma State Election Board.

Point to Monies (a fellow member of the FOI Oklahoma board of directors) and The Oklahoman.

In addition to FOI Oklahoma and the Tulsa World, the amici supporting public disclosure of the DOBs are KWTV, KOTV, KFOR, KOCO, KOKH, KJRH, KTUL, Oklahoma Press Association, Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Radio Television Digital News Association, Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Media and Strategic Communication

Rep. Randy Terrill tries again to stop public access to government workers' birth dates, employee identification numbers

Rep. Randy Terrill on Tuesday added language preventing public access to government workers' birth dates and employee identification numbers to the conference committee version of the Omnibus Corrections bill.

Under the Moore Republican's revised HB 3379, the state Open Records Act would be amended to include the following provisions:

D. The Department of Corrections shall keep confidential the home address, telephone numbers and, social security numbers, employee identification number and birth date of any person employed or formerly employed by the public body.

E. The provisions of subsection D of this section shall be applicable to all public bodies and to any request made pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Open Records Act prior to the effective date of this act for which a public body has not provided a response as of the effective date of this act.

Media attorney Michael Minnis notes that paragraph E might violate the state Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws because it would apply to existing records requests.

The new language also might violate the state Constitution's ban on bills containing multiple subjects, Minnis said.

Terrill also added an emergency clause, meaning that the bill would take effect immediately after being signed by the governor.

However, the emergency clause requires a two-thirds vote of approval by the Legislature.

Last week, Terrill's restrictions on public access to the birth dates and employee identification numbers found in government workers' personnel files were added to a bill originally intended to open access to the dash cam videos of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

Approved by the Senate General Conference Committee on Appropriations, HB 3382 was sent to the House for consideration. But the bill has failed to make it to the floor.

The original bill on dates of birth had failed to make it out of the House by a deadline last month after Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, added an amendment requiring the state Legislature to follow the Open Records Act. Fellow lawmakers didn't want to vote on that issue.

If Terrill's latest attempt to circumvent the traditional legislative vetting process succeeds, the public would find it virtually impossible to determine if government employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions. The public also would find it virtually impossible to track workers across government jobs.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

Bill would hide birth dates of public employees while state sells same information for everyone else

While HB 3382 would conceal public employees' birth dates in their personnel records, the state Department of Public Safety continues to sell the birth dates for millions of regular Oklahomans from other records, the Tulsa World notes today.

The House vote on HB 3382 was delayed from Friday to Monday.

The bill would also would allow DPS to keep OHP dash cam recordings secret when they are most important and to charge $50 for copies of the recordings and for photographs, the FOI Oklahoma Blog pointed out last week.

The language restricting access to the birth dates of public employees was added to HB 3382 last week in the the Senate General Conference Committee on Appropriations

Rep. Randy Terrill's original bill on dates of birth had died in the House last month after Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, added an amendment requiring the state Legislature to follow the Open Records Act. Representatives didn't want to vote on that issue.

Legislators have long used conference committee reports to make last-minute changes to bills that then can be quickly ushered onto the floor of the House and Senate for a final vote, Sean Murphy of the AP notes in an article published statewide today.

Some lawmakers say it allows for last-minute shenanigans as members or lobbyists bypass the traditional vetting process and sneak controversial proposals into the statutes in the waning days of the legislative session, Murphy wrote.

Sound familiar?

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

Senate revives bill closing public access to gov't workers' DOBs, employee ID. numbers; Sets $50 fee for copies of DPS recordings, photos

Legislative slight of hand has resurrected an attempt to restrict access to the birth dates of Oklahoma's government employees and to their employee identification numbers.

The language was added to a bill originally intended to open access to the dash cam videos of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

The original bill on dates of birth had failed to make it out of the House by a deadline last month after Rep. Lucky Lamons, D-Tulsa, added an amendment requiring the state Legislature to follow the Open Records Act. Fellow lawmakers didn't want to vote on that issue.

But Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association warned that the language on birth dates in personnel files might be added to another bill.

Sure enough, that's what happened. The restriction was added to HB 3382.

On Wednesday, the Senate General Conference Committee on Appropriations approved HB 3382, which heads to the House, the Tulsa World reported today.

HB 3382 was originally intended to make public once again recordings by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

The state Department of Public Safety’s audio and video recordings were public records until legislators exempted them in May 2005. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.3(1)(h)(3))

Previous postings on this blog have further explained the history of that legislation: Oklahoma Highway Patrol dash cam videos should be public; OHP releases dashboard camera video; Are Oklahoma Highway Patrol dashboard camera videos a public record?

Now, the public is faced with regaining access to OHP videos or losing access to needed information about its employees.

Thomas told the Tulsa World that the OPA is recommending that HB 3382 be killed.

"The public will just have to live without having access to the dash cam recordings of their state troopers," he said.

Given HB 3382's exemptions and other flaws, that seems best.

The bill would keep recordings closed during "an ongoing criminal or internal investigation to which the video or audio recording is relevant."

It also would require DPS to censor "all content which depicts, expressly or implicitly, the death of any person."

The bill also would allow DPS to charge $1 for the first page of a record and 25 cents for subsequent pages of a report. It sets the fee for copies of DPS videos and still images at $50.

State law already already exempts public employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers.

But HB 3382, revised by Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, and Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, would make it virtually impossible to determine if government employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions.

Eliminating access to the employee identification numbers would make it virtually impossible to track workers across government jobs.

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association and Oklahoma Troopers Association will get want they want either way: No public access to the video of their actions on patrol, or no way for the public to know about its own employees.

The public, on the other hand, will be the big loser this legislative session.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

Lamons amendment would undo Terrill 'compromise' on birth date bill, subject Legislature to Open Records Act

A bill to close public access to the birth dates of government workers would become a bill requiring the state Legislature to follow the Open Records Act, under an amendment filed Wednesday morning by Rep. Lucky Lamons.

The Tulsa Democrat's amendment to SB 1753 might keep the DOB bill from coming to a vote of the full House because representatives likely don't want to decide if they should be subject to the records statute, said Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Thomas warned though that Rep. Randy Terrill and the Oklahoma Public Employees Association might try to close access to the personnel information by inserting their language into another bill.

Late Monday, Terrill filed a "compromise" amendment that would end public access to the birth dates found in the personnel files of government employees. (Read blog posting on Terrill's amendment.)

House members were expected to vote either today or Thursday on that amendment.

But Lamons filed an amendment that would strip Terrill's proposed language and instead require legislators to abide by the state Open Records Act.

Lamons is one of 12 House members who signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

House sponsor says DOB bill likely will change before vote

State Rep. Randy Terrill says a bill exempting the birth dates of public employees from personnel files likely won't be in its current form when it comes up for a vote in the House, The Oklahoman reports today.

Terrill, a Republican from Moore, told the newspaper he wants to come up with a process that outlines how and under what circumstances birth dates of public workers should be released. He said he wants the process to protect workers’ privacy while maintaining the public’s right to know about who is working for their government.

That doesn't sound any more promising for the public's right to know than the current process of balancing the public interest in disclosure and determining whether disclosure would constitute an "unwarranted invasion" of each employee's privacy.

Terrill seems to still be laboring under the impression that releasing the birth date is an invasion of privacy. The information is found in other public records, including voter registration records.

If releasing a birth date is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, why didn't legislators exempt DOBs when they exempted employees' home telephone numbers, home addresses and Social Security numbers in past years?

What about employees' names? Their salaries? Will those be considered unwarranted invasions of privacy?

A week ago, five of the six announced gubernatorial candidates said if they were governor, they would veto SB 1753.

Legislators would better serve public employees if they put an end to this bill and focused instead on solving real problems such as layoffs and unpaid furloughs.

Joey Senat, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

OSU School of Journalism

AG recommends state employee identification numbers be kept confidential because of security concerns, leads to change in network security procedures

State employee identification numbers should be kept confidential because disclosure could expose the state's payroll system to hacking, the Attorney General's Office said this week.

But the assistant attorney general's letter detailing how hackers could use the information to enter the system led to the Office of State Finance changing the password system, The Oklahoman reported today.

Network security systems should rely on passwords and the number of times someone can try to log on before being locked out, said a data privacy expert who was the keynote speaker for FOI Oklahoma's third-annual Sunshine Week conference on Saturday.

The more unique identifiers, the better the system, said Richard J.H. Varn, chief information officer for the city of San Antonio and executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access.

The Oklahoma Public Employees Association, which opposes release of employee birth dates, posted the assistant attorney general's letter to its Web site on Tuesday.

The OPEA quickly equated the employee identification numbers with birth dates, calling them private information.

The Oklahoman, however, pointed out that it had requested dates of birth and employee identification numbers of state employees as part of an ongoing look into the backgrounds of public workers. Public access to the employee identification numbers is the only way to track employees who have changed their names after marriage.

Another speaker for the Sunshine Week conference said Texas has provided him with the employee identification numbers for that state.

"I know of no government body anywhere that has denied access to unique identifiers because of this pathetic excuse. This is a very basic piece of information," said Ryan McNeill, computer-assisted reporting editor for the Dallas Morning News.

Strengthening Oklahoma's payroll system's security procedures would seem to negate the reason for denying access to the employee identification numbers. The attorney general's office should reconsider its recommendation accordingly.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

State employees lobby legislators to exempt birth dates; OKC school district releases workers' DOBs

State employees will be at the Capitol on Tuesday lobbying legislators to close off public access to government workers' birth dates and protesting The Oklahoman's attempt to keep the information public, the Oklahoma Public Employees Association said Monday.

"We cannot let The Oklahoman win," OPEA Executive Director Sterling Zearley told members. "If they do, your birth date will be made public and your safety will be at risk."

On Saturday, OPEA's communications director likewise said public employees would be put at risk if the information is available to the public.

"It’s not just about identity theft," said Mark Beutler. "It’s about protecting our DHS case workers, our corrections officers, the Highway Patrol, employees of the OSBI and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and every other state employee. Just because a person chooses to work for the state doesn't mean they must give up their right to safety."

State law, however, already already exempts public employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers.

Last week, Oklahoma City Public Schools released birth dates for more than 5,000 district employees in response to The Oklahoman's open records request, the newspaper reported

Has the school district put those employees at more risk of having their identities stolen?

No, says Richard J.H. Varn, a data privacy expert and former Iowa legislator who will deliver the keynote at an open government conference in Oklahoma City on Saturday.

"Birth date alone is not going to get you an identity theft,” Varn told The Oklahoman.

Varn also reiterated that public records are not a source of information for identity thieves. Varn is executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access and chief information officer for the city of San Antonio.

On Saturday, Varn will explain what sources we should be worried about and which solutions would be more effective than redacting information such as birth dates from public records.

FOI Oklahoma Inc. invites state legislators and OPEA members to attend the conference to hear Varn for themselves and to discuss the issue with him.

Details on the conference are available online: Oklahoma Sunshine ’10: Privacy, Politicians & the Public’s Need to Know


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Senate leader now says he'd vote against birth date bill; Dueling op-ed columns in The Oklahoman debate issue

Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee now says he will vote against a bill exempting public employee birth dates if the legislation returns to the Senate, The Oklahoman reported this morning.

The Oklahoma City Republican had his chance to vote against SB 1753 last week when it passed the Senate by a 44-0 vote with no discussion or debate on the floor. Instead, he voted for it, the newspaper reported.

Coffee told The Oklahoman he did not support the bill approved by the Senate.

"Upon further review, I think I would have changed my vote,” Coffee said.

Would have? Wish he had done it the first time. But better late than never.

Unless the House changes the legislation, it won't be returning to the Senate, reporters Julie Bisbee and Michael McNutt noted.

However, the bill doesn't have a title, which it must have to become law. A title can be added any time in the legislative process, the newspaper pointed out.

So to become law, the bill would be headed back to the Senate.

Before that, the bill must go through a House committee to be heard by the full House. Along the way, we expect the 12 House members who've signed FOI Oklahoma's Open Government Pledge to live up to that promise to support the public's right to know. (See the 2008 and 2009 signers.)

The bill's House author, Rep. Randy Terrill, told the newspaper he wants to work on the wording of the measure to come up with a "clearly defined, reasonable criteria that strikes the balance between the public’s right to know and the individual’s right of privacy.”

The Moore Republican indicated that balance might not be achieved this legislative session.

In the meantime, perhaps legislators will speak to data privacy experts such as Richard J.H. Varn, who will be addressing the March 13 conference on open government issues.

The former Iowa legislator will explain how improved identity management technology and practices, along with public education on self-protection measures, would be more effective defenses against identity theft.

The Oklahoman today published opposing viewpoints on the bill by Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association and Sterling Zearley of the Oklahoma Public Employees Association. Both deserve a close reading with an open mind.

One point, however, deserves a comment here. Zearley said the public should be entitled to know the birth dates of The Oklahoman's reporters because his subscription helps pay their salaries. Zearley is equating his subscription fee with taxes.

But paying for a subscription to The Oklahoman is a voluntary choice. Paying local and state taxes isn't one.

Birth dates. Identity theft. The public's need to know. This is a complicated issue that requires more than simplistic, bumper sticker solutions. It requires an informed debate.

FOI Oklahoma Inc. hopes to add to that debate at its conference March 13 in Oklahoma City. The deadline for early registration is March 10. If you're interested in this issue, please register and attend.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Tulsa World: Why birth dates of government employees are important to the public

A Tulsa World editorial today criticized the state Senate for moving last week to exempt public employee birth dates from the Open Records Act.

Like this blog did Friday, the editorial noted that senators passed the bill with no debate or questions.

The editorial also demonstrated how access to the information can help prevent the wrong people from being identified as criminals. Thirty-three state legislators' names match those of felons listed in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections database.

The editorial also pointed to the newspaper's investigation years ago that found more than 200 school district employees "were arrested and jailed in Tulsa County for various offenses, including felonies. Some of the employees had arrest records prior to their employment and others got into trouble with the law after they were employed."

As a result of the reporting, legislators "tightened up requirements on school districts to check out the public records of their employees."

"The investigation wouldn't have been possible — and the felons would still be in the school house — if birth dates were kept secret," the editorial explained.

"Some people want to keep their secrets secret," the newspaper concluded. "The public should know that the secret to transparent government is a dedication to open records that are accessible and usable."

At the March 13 FOI conference in Oklahoma City, an internationally recognized expert on data privacy will explain why exempting birth dates from public records won't lessen the threat of identity theft.

He also will explain how improved identity management technology and practices, along with public education on self-protection measures, would be more effective defenses.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

Senate committee OKs bills to exempt public employee birth dates, film proposals, stop court clerks from charging more than 25 cents per copy

The state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved a bill exempting government employees' dates of birth from the Open Records Act, The Oklahoman reported today.

However, the bill's title -- a requirement to become law -- was removed after some committee members expressed concerns about some of the legislation's language, the newspaper said.

Senate Bill 1753 next goes to the full Senate for consideration along with two other records-related bills approved by the committee on Tuesday.

SB 1351, filed by Sen. David Myers, R-Ponca City, would keep confidential certain film proposals to the state Film and Music Office.

SB 1318, filed by Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid, would limit court clerks to 25 cent per page for documents requested under the Open Records Act. Anderson is the Judiciary Committee chairman.

SB 1753 was filed by Sen. Debbe Leftwich, D-Oklahoma City.

She told The Oklahoman that the bill wasn't requested by local officials but was based on her reaction to a state attorney general opinion that she had requested on behalf of Oklahoma City officials.

In that opinion, Attorney General Drew Edmondson said the birth dates of public employees are presumed open and may be withheld only if officials can demonstrate on a case-by-case basis that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy that outweighs the public interest. (2009 OK AG 33)

Given that public employees' Social Security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers are already exempted, SB 1753 would make it virtually impossible to determine if those employees have committed crimes, evaded paying taxes, filed for bankruptcy or made political contributions.

Background on the bill and the issues surrounding public access to the birth dates of government employees can be found in this earlier posting on this blog.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism