The Des Moines Register. Dec. 27, 2014.
Public shouldn’t pay for state records twice
The Iowa Public Information Board recently upheld a decision by the state Department of Corrections to demand $2,000 from anyone wanting to see its reports on rape and sexual violence against inmates.
Unfortunately, the board’s decision makes perfect sense: Under Iowa law, government agencies collect, sort, analyze and archive information on you and your neighbors and the agencies will simply plug that expense into their budgets. But should you want to see that information, these same agencies will argue that the disclosure of information is an unbudgeted expense that must be borne by the requesting party.
And they charge fees not just for photocopies, but for the time they spend retrieving the information, reading it, considering whether to disclose it, and editing it to withhold any parts they think are confidential. Most of those fees can be imposed even when the agency decides to provide nothing at all in response to the record request.
As you’d expect, these fees can be particularly high when the information that’s being sought isn’t flattering to the people who control access to the records.
In 2010, for example, the Des Moines Register asked for just two weeks’ worth of emails between the director of the Iowa Department on Aging and one of his co-workers. The director said he’d turn over the emails only if the newspaper first paid $744. The Register balked and was able to get a few of the relevant emails at no cost from another source. Those emails showed the director had repeatedly lied about his own overt attempts to interfere with the work of federal advocates for Iowa’s elderly. Within days of the emails being made public, the director was forced to resign.
That case illustrates not only the value of public documents in holding governing officials accountable, but the dangers associated with exorbitant fees for access. Had there been no other source for the emails, they would have remained under lock and key, the department director would have kept his job and, presumably, the illegal acts would have continued.
What’s particularly galling about the fee-for-access policy is that while government agencies argue that it’s unfair for the “general taxpayer” to absorb the cost of disclosing information, they have no problem spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars each year on the salaries of media-relations personnel and the production of self-serving, politically motivated press releases. It seems that the fees for access are applied only when citizens and the media ask for information that’s of their own choosing.
So it should come as no surprise that the Iowa Department of Corrections wants the Marshall Project - a nonprofit news organization that focuses on America’s criminal justice system - to pay $2,000 for heavily redacted written reports of rape and sexual assault within the facilities controlled by that department.
Granted, other states are charging no fee at all for their prison-rape reports. And some states aren’t making any redactions to the records, largely because the documents don’t identify either the victims or the perpetrators by anything other than vague demographic information as to gender, age and race.
But that’s not how Iowa does business. In this state, citizens seeking public accountability must first write a check or hand over their Visa card - and then be prepared to receive none of the information they are seeking.
This has gone on for far too long. Legislators need to bring Iowa’s public-disclosure laws in line with other states and prohibit fees for anything other than the actual cost of duplicating a record. Otherwise, citizens will never have meaningful access to information on their state, school districts, cities and counties.
___
Telegraph Herald. Dec. 26, 2014.
State of Iowa should ease liability from sledding mishaps
The city of Dubuque is home to 49 parks. Many of those are neighborhood parks, tucked into the nooks and crannies of residential areas. They are gathering places for neighborhood kids. Given Dubuque’s extraordinarily hilly topography, much of the city’s 878 acres of parks provide great spaces for sledding and other winter activities.
But Dubuque might soon see an end to neighborhood park sledding. City government’s legal liability from sledding mishaps appears too great. Though it might be the Dubuque City Council that enacts the ordinance banning sledding in most parks, place the blame on the state of Iowa (and the litigious nature of some people these days).
State law largely protects Iowa municipalities from lawsuits related to bicycling, skateboarding, in-line skating and canoeing. But there is no such protection for sledding, skiing or snowboarding. That means if a kid is injured while sledding - not an uncommon occurrence - his or her parents could sue the city of Dubuque. That would not be the case if the kid were skateboarding.
To mitigate that liability, city officials are considering limiting sledding to only Allison-Henderson Park and Bunker Hill Golf Course. Anyone skiing, snowboarding or sledding in any other city parks or recreation area would be trespassing in the eyes of the law. Signage posted at Bunker and the restrictions on sledding at other parks would reduce the city’s liability from sledding-related accidents.
This isn’t just some “what-if” overprotective impulse that spawned an ordinance change. This is the kind of financial risk that could devastate a community. Just ask the city of Boone, Iowa. A lawsuit over a sledding accident cost that local government more than $12 million.
Dubuque City Council members don’t relish the idea of telling kids they can’t play in city parks if that play involves winter sliding. But, given the kind of legal exposure in a lawsuit, council members should hold their noses and support the measure when it comes back before them in January.
Then, Dubuque citizens should take up the issue with the elected officials who could really do something about it: state lawmakers.
Last year, the Iowa House passed legislation limiting cities’ liability in sledding accidents. But it failed to gain traction in the Senate. In the next session, Iowa lawmakers should address this issue and relieve cities of much of their excessive liability regarding sledding.
Finding a good sledding hill is one of the highlights of childhood. Dubuque has hundreds of acres of beautiful parks, including many prime locations for sledding. It would be worse than regrettable to prevent kids from enjoying these hills because of a fear of lawsuits.
The city of Dubuque owes it to taxpayers to protect itself from significant financial liability. But the Iowa Legislature owes it to constituents to address this concern for Dubuque and all Iowa cities by addressing sledding in state law.
___
Sioux City Journal. Dec. 28, 2014.
Tom Harkin leaves considerable mark
Few, if any Iowans would argue the signature achievement of Tom Harkin’s 40 years in Congress (10 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate) is the Americans With Disabilities Act he authored and shepherded to passage and signature by President George H.W. Bush in 1990.
The ADA prohibits discrimination against Americans with disabilities in all areas of public life.
A landmark civil-rights law, the ADA is symbolic of Harkin’s approach to public service. An unabashed political liberal, Harkin is motivated and guided by a belief in the capacity of government to produce good and improve the day-to-day lives of average Americans.
When we asked him, in a recent interview from his Washington office, to cite legislative accomplishments, aside from the ADA, of which he is proud, Harkin pointed to improved nutrition in public school lunches, prevention and wellness provisions within the Affordable Care Act, and closed captioning for televisions.
Harkin, we will add, didn’t forget folks back home during his time in Washington. The staff he built in Iowa was admired for the quality of its constituent work. He was a fervent, if not colorful advocate for priorities of this state, including agriculture and renewable energy. (Who can forget the time Harkin took several swallows of ethanol to prove its safety during a 1994 ethanol-vs.-methanol debate in the Senate?) Here in Sioux City, Harkin was a champion for a broad spectrum of important initiatives, from Perry Creek flood-control work, to creation of the Siouxland Community Health Center, to the Harkin Place housing project, to transportation projects.
First elected to the House in 1974 when Democrats seized 49 seats from Republicans in the wake of Watergate, Harkin was returned to Washington by Iowans in nine subsequent elections, beating such heavyweight Republican Senate candidates (and incumbent congressional officeholders) as Roger Jepsen, Jim Ross Lightfoot, Tom Tauke and Greg Ganske.
His valuable experience and influence within Congress in support of Iowa and Iowans will be missed.
We won’t sugarcoat our differences with Harkin, starting with our more conservative philosophy about the size of the federal government and spending in Washington.
Still, we respect and often admired Iowa’s retiring U.S. senator for his commitment to the principles and causes in which he believed and for the integrity he demonstrated in pursuit of them. Disagreement need not lead to distaste. Listen to the warm, genuine farewell comments of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley about fellow Iowan Harkin on the floor of the Senate last month and you will appreciate what we mean.
In our interview, Harkin spoke with pride about 21 bills passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee he chairs - a panel Harkin called one of the most diverse within the chamber - and cited former Sen. Bob Dole, a Republican, as one of the congressional colleagues he admired most, but he bemoaned an overall “breakdown” in relationships across the political aisle (as well as the growing influence of money) as concerns about Congress moving forward.
We wish we heard more of those sentiments from within a body too often polarized and paralyzed by partisanship.
As Harkin leaves public office, we salute him for his service to the state and nation.
Did he, in fact, make Iowa and America better? Did he, as he wanted, improve lives?
Without question, he did.
We can conceive of no better tribute.
___
Quad-City Times. Dec. 27, 2014.
Build a bridge to our heritage
In the 1850s, the earliest Quad-Citians needed the first Mississippi River railroad crossing to carry freight and passengers westward. Forget about St. Louis. The bridge opened in 1856 anchors our community as the true gateway to the West.
That’s historian Doug Brinkley’s take on the famous first river cross from Arsenal Island to Davenport’s shore.
Now, our Quad-Cities needs a replica of the first bridge to connect our entire community’s amazing historical narrative to a nation of history lovers - like Brinkley - eager for river, railroad and Abraham Lincoln stories. River Action, Inc. has an ambitious plan to re-create a single span of that bridge as a trail from the original earthen abutment over River Drive to Davenport’s Heritage Park.
River Action has a track record for ambitious projects. Our lighted Centennial Bridge, riverfront trails, waterway trails, riverside art and countless other projects arose from River Action initiatives many dismissed as impossible.
Now River Action has an even bigger dream that director Kathy Wine believes can come true with federal and state transportation grants, along with private contributions from across the country.
The First Bridge project has the touchstones that make national support a likelihood. The story of the bridge is the stuff of miniseries.
- Henry Farnam and Joseph Sheffield pioneering a new railroad from Chicago to the Mississippi River
- A bridge path blazed across Arsenal Island land surveyed by Robert E. Lee.
- Hewn timbers hauled by workhorses Prince and Major over thick river ice.
- A cheering reception on April 22, 1856, as three steam locomotives pulled the first eight passenger cars from Illinois to Iowa.
- A fiery collision by the Effie Afton that destroy a bridge span and the boat two weeks later.
- A young Abraham Lincoln representing the railroad in litigation that still rules the river today.
Our bridge encompasses critical American history. Railroaders already consider the current Government Bridge as an icon. We can see them crowding the re-creation for photographs as well.
Those American historical touchstones are important to our nation’s history. River Action’s plan make them essential for our Quad-Cities future.
Without this project, that rich history remains in books, museums and a few roadside plaques. This bridge can become a focal point for our community’s rich history.
We can guess what critics might say. Too expensive. Not essential. Too big a project for our community.
We’re glad that sentiment did not prevail in the 1850s, when hard work, commitment and a vision for our community’s future drove our Q-C ancestors to turn dreams into action.
Count us as eager supporters of River Action’s next community-changing project.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.