Argus Article

[zooropa]

Re: Argus Article

You didn't advocate censorship. Did someone say you did?

You said:

try living in a country where there is a controlled press or no press

Granted, you didn't SAY censorship, but you clearly implied that I have no understanding of the consequences of my position.

What's this connected to?

The assertion that favoring access restrictions is equivalent to 'controlling the press.'

You really aren't going to try to make an argument that a private employee like Stu Whitney is the same as a public employee are you? You don't have to buy an Argus Leader. You have to pay your share of taxes.

I will make that case. Why?

Consider: The SEC demands a pretty high degree of transparency from publicly traded companies, yet it can hardly be asserted that investors in publicly traded companies have to invest in them.

Buying a share of IBM is every bit as voluntary as picking up a copy of the Argus Leader, yet -extensive- disclosure is required.

On that count, then, there is precedent for extensive disclosure from -private- enterprise.

Furthermore, TV asserted that access to employee records would serve as a protection to employees. NOT as a means of holding the government accountable for this or that.

If, therefore, the access is desired to 'protect' employees, why should such 'protection' be applied strictly to the public sector?

1) determining if public money has been properly spent; 2) determining conflicts of interest; and 3) determining fitness for a particular position.

Items 1 and 2 do not require access to personnel records and item 3 is, frankly, a tenuous reach. It's pretty hard to 'prove' that someone is unfit for their position. It's not as simple as saying, "State records show that $166,000 was budgeted for _____, a company where _______was formerly employed" and leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.

But when you get to something where there's no 'smoking gun' odds are you won't find one in the personnel files either.

go back and read what I wrote. I made no attempt to quote you on that point.

No, you didn't 'attempt' to quote me, you 'attempted' to sum up my position in a snotty and inaccurate little one-liner.

I pay my Physician. He does me "favors" all the time.

It's not a 'favor' if you pay him.

Shoveling the sidewalk of the handicapped guy across the street is a favor. Performing a service contracted for in a competent manner is not.

I think you may be incorrectly mixing the publisher's office with the newsroom. You seem to delight in the print media "getting what it has earned" for having "jacked up their ad rates".

I see the problem as twofold (allowing that these are necessarily generalized):

1) Bad decisions by the publisher's office: a) all but giving away internet advertising, b) assuming that print advertising rates could be increased, year over year, forever

2) Bad decisions in the editors office: a) failing to grasp the FoxNews/conservative talk radio movement for what it was, b) copying the shrill tone of commentators

Frankly the newspaper's credibility is its single greatest asset, and IMO, many editors proved themselves poor custodians of that credibility.

You cannot allow, for instance, Thomas Friedman to make hilariously inaccurate claims on the Op-Ed page without having it taint the public's perception of every other article in the paper.

----

You combine poor stewardship of credibility that made other news sources attractive with high-handed advertising policies and you've got a perfect recipe for what's happening right now.

And if it 'delights' me that this is going on, it shouldn't. But this shouldn't surprise anyone at all.

Heck, we saw it all once before with Napster. Napster was piracy on a grand scale, but it was also an indictment of the pricing model and content practices of the music industry (e.g. put one hit on an album full of crap and sell it for $18.95, and maybe the artist gets a buck).

[JackJD]

Re: Argus Article

You and I do not think the same...but I'll stop and then you can have the last word.

[zooropa]

Re: Argus Article

You and I do not think the same...but I'll stop and then you can have the last word.

Right.

You assert that I'm ignorant:

If your post was completely serious, then I recommend you take some remedial history courses, particularly those that show the interrelationship between the press and government.

You misstate my opinion:
What I said:

No member of the press (or any profession or industry) should be trusted completely when they assert that anything that favors them in particular is in the best interests of the public in general

Your summary:

XXXX must be wrong because someone is trying to make a profit,

You personalize the debate even further:

People pay me for what I do and I bust my butt for them and won't stand for you to suggest otherwise

And now you're going to throw in one final jab and pretend that you're taking the high road?

Give me a break. You want to debate ideas, debate ideas, and debate them as they're expressed. Don't drag people into it, don't assert ignorance, don't deliberately misstate them, and don't climb out of the mud and pretend you're not dirty.

[Rabbitlivinginverm]

Re: Argus Article

This may be a first, but I agree with Zooropa on this little debate. Okay, that IS a first.

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

You and I do not think the same...but I'll stop and then you can have the last word.

I tend to believe there is more agreement than disagreement between JackJD and zooropa. Maybe some hair splitting is going on here. If we are to leave Dr Oien completely out of the equation, there are some very interesting issues raised by the Argus relating to privacy laws in SD.

The biggest issue in my mind is the notion that the SD laws privacy laws are outdated. If those of you with legal training know something here, I sure would like find out when they were put on the books. Are the laws as old as statehood of SD, like 1889? On the surface, I kind of doubt that. Seems like the current laws might have come about maybe like in 1970's which in my mind is recent and are serving a good purpose.

Also when a newspaper already has information that is off the record, why would they need to have access to a personnel files? Would that be a way of legitimizing the off the record comments? Terry says the Argus has a policy that is against using anaymous sources. It seems like a rotten way to get your article written if that is reason here for wanting access.

I just don't see how a newspaper should have the same powers that a law enforcement agency. They always have to go to court to get access to records, to search residence or property? At a minimum that should apply to newspapers in the same manner. The individual who file is to be opened should be allowed to have legal defense to challange this request.

I believe in freedom of the press and yes the Argus should be our watch dog on a number of issues, but when they get on their noble high horse and start destroying people after having access to personnel files, then they are hardly the watch dog that TV proclaimed in the radio comments to KJJQ. They become a force of evil.

The personnel file in my mind is property of a employer-employee relationship. Therefore, why would they want to share information with a newspaper?

Just because I will pay $2600 in property taxes this year, I do not feel I should have access to the city clerk personnel file. I went a round and round with the city clerk about estimates of use in my billing for water usage, but doubt the personnel file would have told me much about my problem. In fact an outside meter solved the problem. The city employees could not get access to my basement where the water meter was located.

I don't think May 29th can come fast enough for me. That is the date that Justin Sell will becomes the new AD. I hope the Argus will drop this poop issue and stop questioning the leadership of President David Chicoine.

[sfsd]

Re: Argus Article

Plainly and simply: If the person is a state employee, then every taxpayer is the employer. This is why we pay taxes. Not the person who hired them, who also is an employee of the people, nor any legislator. This is why employee salaries are public information.

[boxerboy]

Re: Argus Article

You and I do not think the same...but I'll stop and then you can have the last word.

He always does.

[EQguy]

Re: Argus Article

Plainly and simply: If the person is a state employee, then every taxpayer is the employer. This is why we pay taxes. Not the person who hired them, who also is an employee of the people, nor any legislator. This is why employee salaries are public information.

So SFSD, in Michigan do you have access to Tom Izzo's personell file? Could you go in there tomorrow and demand to see what's in his file and get it?

[NoVaJack]

Re: Argus Article

[quote=EQguy;121662]So SFSD, in Michigan do you have access to Tom Izzo's personell file? Could you go in there tomorrow and demand to see what's in his file and get it?[/quote]

Considering South Dakota's open records laws vs. other states, SFSD might be able to.

In a related point, Connecticut's head basketball coach is by far the state's highest-paid employee. (We know this because of open records laws). The state, like many others, is going through tough budgetary times. An entrerprising reporter using said state open records laws found out that while his compensation remained untouched (and maybe even was going up from its millions of dollars) others were being laid off. What followed was a very legitimate question of why this coach, who at the time was in hot water for questionale recruiting tactics, remained untouched when the people who drive the snowplows or catch the crooks or served in his state-run security detail were getting laid off or pinched. Now, I fully realize that some will argue the "different pots" point, but the real point is that this debate never could have ensued without public disclosure of his compensation.

Elsewhere on this board, there has been discussion about the mess at K-State because of the disclosure of a "secret deal" between a departed coach and the AD. Funny, haven't seen anyone over there defending the secret deal as a matter of personal privacy. Does the private records crowd believe it should have remained a secret agreement to send this failed coach off to UVA with $3.4 million in public funds in hus pocket - beyond the $1.2 million "public" buyout announcement?

The public should determine what's public, not the keepers of the public records. This isn't a matter of prying into personal lives, it's accountability for public funds and public acts taken on behalf of the people who pay taxes and fund the programs. If one voluntarily paid taxes, the "let the public be private" argument might have a little more intellectual heft behind it. But last I looked, that was not a voluntary option - unless you are the ex-mayor of Washington, D.C.

[bub94]

Re: Argus Article

Wanting to know what a SDSU employee makes is fine. If that is what the Argus wants, then fine. But that isn't what Stu wants. He wants to know EVERYTHING about Fred's life at SDSU so he can feed his opinions regarding SDSU and a retired SDSU employee. And he won't stop there. The only one he probably won't look into is A.J. I'm sorry but IMO, he doesn't need access to this info and neither do I.

[JackJD]

Re: Argus Article

South Dakota's Open Records law (note: this is broader than just personnel records) is generally SDCL Chap. 1-27 which can be accessed here.

There are other statutes outside SDCL Chap. 1-27 which also have some impact on this topic.

Related is the subject of open meetings. See SDCL Chap. 1-25. Link.
There are other statutes that may have an impact on open meetings.

These topics have been debated a lot in recent years and the debates will continue. There are situations in which most would agree records should not be open and, of course, there are situations in which all agree the records should be open (sfsd gave a clear example: public employee salaries).

Here's a link to the South Dakota Newspaper Association website with information on why that organization feels there should be more openness. The argument is not limited to personnel records but public records and meetings in general.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=111195&rfi=6

[JimmyJack]

Re: Argus Article

South Dakota has had a textbook open records law for years. That is, every journalism textbook mentions South Dakota open records law as perhaps the WORST in the nation. It has been very easy for officials and institutions in our state to avoid accountability by hiding their work (although they couch their fight against openness as an effort to protect private information). The fight to open records is generally not about private information or personnel records. It's about democracy. We have a right to know how our institutions and public officials conduct state business.

So the goal of most open records advocates is not to open up personnel records, but to simply force public entities to do their business in an open and forthright way and with accountability. It's our government, not theirs. It always shocks me when the stewards of public information act as if it belongs to them personally. At issue is the ability of the people to hold their public officials and institutions accountable. I see nothing wrong with that.

I honestly haven't heard any newspaper people clamoring for access to anybody's personnel records. I'm frankly surprised in this case that it has become any kind of cause for anybody at the Argus. Openness, when it comes to how somebody does the state's business (and by that I mean spending state dollars, setting policy, etc.) is one thing. Personal records are quite another thing. Of course there must be exceptions to an open records policy, and personnel records are at the top of that list.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Argus Article

My gosh, I leave for four days and find a whole new thread on basically the same issue. I'll be brief:

1) South Dakota's legislature just passed a better open records law...not perfect...but a start. Never in the discussion I've seen or heard were personnel records (i.e., the personal record of an employee, maintained by the employer) discussed or considered...because they will ALWAYS be considered private, even for public employees (I'll take any over/under on this, but consider if you want to collect, I'm 75 years old, so I am SURE I won't be around to collect...or pay).

2) Public employee salaries (schools, cities, state, etc.) have been open for a LONG time. I know, because I had to lobby against bills on numerous occasions that would have closed them. That is not the same as personnel files.

3) I asked for the thread to be closed, because I'll admit I get tired of seeing the thread turned yellow, feeling I need to check it to find if something new has been added, and scanning through a bunch of posts which restate basically the same opinions, thoughts, points previously raised.

When any thread gets 6,500 views and 143 posts, it seems to me it has been pretty well discussed. I'll continue to call for locking a thread when similar situations happen in the future. I belonged to a national group, before I retired, and at the annual meetings every year, the 60-70 managers present, would chime in on whatever subject. One year, an enterprising member brought an electronic board with 70 red bulbs on it, and a switch for every member. When you thought the subject had been covered and you were weary of the same thoughts over and over, you pushed your switch and a red light came on. When the board lit up, we moved to another subject. I thought it was brilliant and it worked. Calling for locking a thread is, in my opinion, similar. I don't care if some poster thinks it is lame...when enough people view it that way, the thread gets locked. You are not going to take away my right to suggest locking a thread.

Finally, obviously when a thread is locked, an aggrieved party can open a new thread on the same subject. Look what happened here...although I believe that this thread morphed into a different area and retains some small sense of "newness".

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus Article

I want to say thank to both JJ and Jack#1fan for their posts. They were helpful. I bear my share of guilt in being redundant so will say no more on this topic.

[joeboo22]

Re: Argus Article

I don't know what people are argueing about..... Did something need to be wrote? Yeah probably it was an issue and should of probably of been brought to the forefront..... Terry could of went 2 ways.... state that facts get a few people on the record and give a good article that says a lot without saying anything..... or go the Stu way and get a lot of people to go on the record twist there words around and then make the case that SDSU should go NAIA and play all there games in Sioux Falls....

Now its available but what was said is pretty well excepted and was to the punch for the most part.... we didn't have Stu talking about how one time Fred took a piss on a tree when he was 16 years old while drinking beer and a classmate thought he might have a drinking problem then or anything like that....

The argus itself is a pretty decent paper they have a full time beat writer for SDSU and USD, and do a pretty good job of covering both schools.... Stu though I disagree a lot on how he writes his stuff does what he is suppose to do get people talking..... If you know a reporters name for good or bad that means he is selling papers....