[WEB4LIB] Re: Filtering activist claims libraries ignoring FOI

[Dan Lester]

At 07:36 AM 4/7/99 -0700, Filtering Facts wrote:
>>This might be more interesting or compelling if there were info on just
>>WHAT was being requested.  Are they requesting circulation records,
>>anecdotal evidence, official complaint forms, or something else?
>>
>
>Why don't you read the two URLs related to the article.  They answer your
>questions.
>http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1999/4/6burt.asp
>http://www.filteringfacts.org/da-main.htm

NO, David.  I'm responding to YOUR posting.  I'm not responding to some 
URL.  If you post something, it is up to YOU to post complete and accurate 
information.  Sure, you indicated you snipped.  I'd hope that a 
professional would choose to post only the most informative, useful and 
relevant information.  Therefore, you need to stand behind what YOU post, 
not dump the responsibility off on someone else.  If all you wanted to do 
was to inform us of a web site, you could have done that with one or two 
lines indicating the type of information that was available at that 
URL.  I've done that kind of things many times, and am thus informing 
people of the existence of something, without posting information that by 
my posting of it puts me in a position to have to defend it.

>We're not talking about "a survey", Dan, were talking about *a matter of
>law*.  In nearly all these states, gov. agencies, including libraries, *are
>required* to respond to FOI requests, even if that's a "no we don't have
>any" or "no, we won't give 'em to you".  It's a matter of law.

Aaahhh, but even if it IS a matter of law in some states, no librarians 
worth their salt will respond to a legal issue without legal advice.  When 
I was director of an academic library in another state I had a police 
officer come in with what he said was a court order and that I was to show 
him certain records.  I referred him to the college legal counsel to advise 
me on what to do, as I wouldn't know a genuine court order from a phony 
one.  When a couple of days later I was informed by counsel that I should 
do certain things, I did them.  The officer wasn't happy with me, but I was 
doing my job, just as he was doing his.

>Again, RTFM, Dan.  I asked in my request that names be removed.  No

Gee, I don't see any "manual", David. And I assume that in YOUR version of 
RTFM the F refers to "Fancy", right?

>names,
>address, etc., no privacy issue.  End of story.

Nope.  As above, I'd not do any provision of information without legal 
counsel telling me to do so.  I'd be a fool and risking my job to do otherwise.

> Are you arguing that if a
>library doesn't like the "sound bites" that might be produced by the release
>of record they should fight it out in court?

I'm arguing that librarians should do what legal counsel tells them to 
do.  I'm also suggesting that libraries get plenty of junk mail that nobody 
reads.  I'm also suggesting that in at least some libraries, anything 
coming from FF.org or AFA will automatically, if accidentally, fall into 
the round file or be lost in the mail.  As such, if you want to play legal 
games, be prepared to play by legal rules before you get all excited about 
the results.

cheers

dan


--
Good, Fast, and Cheap: Which two of the three would you like?
Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716 USA 208-383-0165
dan at 84.com   http://www.84.com/  http://www.idaholibraries.org/
http://library.boisestate.edu/   http://www.lili.org/  http://www.postcard.org/