Monday afternoon open thread

Lamont and Malloy on issues (0.00 / 0)

Finally, we get to compare Lamont and Malloy on policy positions. CTPoliticalReporter has details on the two candidates' views on paid sick leave. Ned is against it. Malloy is for it. ...

In an interview with the CT Mirror that was posted today, February 8, 2010, Lamont is quoted:

   "I think we deal with sick leave just fine at the small-business level where I live. I'm not sure I need the government stepping in and putting another mandate on businesses like mine," he said. [...]

Malloy contends that there are better ways to improve the business climate without forcing people to go to work sick. According to Malloy "Connecticut needs to lower energy costs, provide smart tax incentives that reward businesses that create jobs, and fix our health care system to help small businesses lower their overhead. And we can do these things, and more. But we don't have to force sick people to go to work."

I agree with Malloy on this one.

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 17:57:52 PM UTC

Oops -- did I not see that Malloy statement in your diary? (0.00 / 0)

Or was it added after I posted my comment? Either way, it's good to see some policy debates.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:17:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

agreed (0.00 / 0)

It is nice to finally see a discussion on the issues beyond financing!

---

by: kennadie @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:34:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a fellow small business owner (0.00 / 0)

and a strong supporter of Ned, I have to respectfully disagree with him on this issue.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:55:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pazniokas's piece makes me sick to my stomach (0.00 / 0)

Here's Pazniokas's headline:  

Lamont: A political 'rock star' tries to expand his base

When will these hacks stop using mindless cliches like "rock star"?  Give me a break!  And "tries to expand his base"?  

His base?  He won a majority of the Democratic electorate in his 2006 primary, with a record number of voters casting ballots, and an unprecedented number of voters registering as Democrats.  And in this state, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans.  So taking the majority of Democrats in an election with strong turnout, then increasing that percentage in the general election, means that his "base" is pretty dang big.

Then in the general election in a three-way race, he drew 40% of the total vote, with Lieberman lying to Democrats about always being a Democrat and promising to support a Democrat for president.  There have been four polls by Research 2000 since then that showed that Lamont would clobber Lieberman in a rematch by increasing margins each time.

And what percentage of the vote did DeStefano garner in the 2006 gubernatorial vote?  I'll bet that Lamont got a higher percentage, or at least close.  Anyone want to look that up for us?

But, no, Pazniokas, true to the right-wing Hartford Courant journalistic form, still continues with the right-wing garbage about Lamont "trying" to "expand his base".  No matter that the overwhelming percentage of the American people agreed with Lamont that the war was a mistake, no matter that he took a strong majority of Democrats in a Demoratic state, no mention of the fact that Lamont led Obama's presidential campaign in Connecticut and managed to deliver CT to Obama, the only state he won on Super Tuesday.

And let's recall that Pazniokas went on Where We Live and without laughing stated that the press coverage of Chris Dodd had been- get this!- "fair"!  Bill Curry was there, and ripped Pazniokas a new one for that absolute lie.  Curry told him how miserable the coverage had been of Dodd, how the press had continually pretended that Dodd had received monetary favors through his Countrywide mortgage loan, even months after the Ethics Committee had issued its report clearing Dodd of having received any favors.  Pazniokas and Dankosky seemed stunned by that outpouring of truth to journalists.

No, Pazniokas, wants to take up right where our right-wing press left off in 2006, pretending that the only support for Lamont comes from the far, far left wing of the far left Democratic Party.  We're back with the "rock star" crap.  And Pazniokas even suggests that Lamont's lead is only there because it's so early in the campaign.  What garbage.

If Pazniokas is the best journalist this state has, it just goes to show what a lousy press corps we have in Connecticut.  His article was a piece of right-wing Fox News-style crap!

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:19:55 PM UTC

But Paz did talk to Lamont about the issues ... (0.00 / 0)

... and I haven't seen that anywhere yet (which doesn't say much for the rest of the CT press corps). I give Paz credit for that.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:39:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do we really have to give him credit for that? (0.00 / 0)

Should we really give him a pass when he writes that crap about "trying" to "expand his base", and when he still uses the "rock star" garbage?  And Pazniokas is still going after bloggers, even when he should know by now how lousy the "professional" reporters are in this state.

No, he might be the best of a bad lot, but I don't think we need to give him credit.  He deserves a lot of criticism for his slanted and dishonest article.  It was garbage, and we should tell it to him, just the way Bill Curry told him he was full of it for suggesting that the press coverage of Dodd had been "fair".

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:47:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect, reporters are not the individuals in charges with making the headline...and I would hardly call Paz's work a piece of "Fox News crap." in fact, Paz is (BY FAR) one of the best journalist in Connecticut..

---

by: ctblogger @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:36:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Rock star" and "expand the base" (4.00 / 1)

both come directly from the article - I don't think we can blame the headline writer for that one.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 20:03:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not the best in CT (0.00 / 0)

I'd say that Mary O'Leary of New Haven Register is far better, as is Ken Borsuk of Greenwich Post, though he doesn't cover the state.  

But you're right that most reporters are atrocious in this state.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:22:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

uh ... yes (0.00 / 0)

Few things are all good or all bad, and when you see something good -- like a reporter covering key issues -- it helps to say so. That way, you might see more of it.

In your nonstop rant against Paz, you miss some good information about the candidates' policies, including their positions on paid sick leave. That's too bad.

 

---

by: CaptCT @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:52:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We should not settle for morsels of truth, while.. (0.00 / 0)

there is so much to condemn in that article?  Why should we keep silent when we see another "here we go again" piece of twisted journalism?  Why should we let Ned Lamont get smeared again?

Where is it acceptable for those outrageous charges about Lamont's "inability to expand his base" to stand, just because there are a few facts in the story?  Is that the best we can hope for?  Really?  So just keep quiet and let Lamont get smeared?  Again?

I'm sorry, but I'm fed up with the sort of crap that Pazniokas just spewed out.  It was a sorry piece of journalism, and we shouldn't let him get away with it.  Pazniokas deserves to be roundly criticized for his biased reporting, and he should think hard about it and figure out if that's the best he can do.  If so, we don't need it.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:18:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute... (0.00 / 0)

That's all a reporter has to do to be considered to have done a good job?  Just "talk to a candidate about the issues"?  That's it?

Should we really settle for that low level of journalism?  And should journalists themselves settle for that?  When are they going to wake up and figure out that they are losing their jobs left and right because they don't put out a product that anyone wants to purchase anymore?

Seems like common sense.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:20:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

" A piece of right-wing Fox News-style crap!" (0.00 / 0)

Hyperbole much?

I've always found Pazniokas to be fair and a more than competent journalist who doesn't intrude upon the story as some others in Conn, and gets his facts straight.

Ted Day is another one who does a good job.

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:03:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you meant Ted Mann of the Day (3.00 / 1)

---

by: kennadie @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:20:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, him too (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:26:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How 'bout this article? "Fair"? (0.00 / 0)

Do you think this article by Pazniokas was fair?  Do you think his referring to Ned as a "rock star", channeling the same tired MSM garbage that the right tried to throw at Obama, was "fair"?  Really?

And the crap about "trying to expand his base".  Was that "fair and balanced"?

How 'bout his snarky comments about bloggers?  "Fair"?

Do you agree with Pazniokas that the coverage by our state's press corps of Dodd was "fair"?  Did you read it?

I'll ask the questions; you decide.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:13:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The article is fine (0.00 / 0)

Re-reading it again I see no reason to get the vapors over it. But hey, if that's your thing....

---

by: Scarce @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 23:14:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm with Scarce... (0.00 / 0)

I read the article before reading this thread, and nothing Paz wrote set off any alarm bells. (if anything I thought it was friendly coverage.)

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 23:43:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama won more then just Ct on super Tuesday (0.00 / 0)

 Mr Hooker I seem to recall Obama winning more then just Connecticut on super Tuesday.Perhaps you would wish to retract that statement.In fact, Obama won Connecticut  in abit of an upset in the fact that Hillary Clinton was  the Senator  from abutting New York State and was in here several times to Obama's one time.

---

by: BruceRubenstein2 @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 23:52:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CT was the only New England state he won on Super Tuesday (0.00 / 0)

I thought I'd made that clear, but evidently not.  Yes, Obama, with the help of that political neophyte Ned Lamont, pulled off an upset by taking Connecticut in Hillary Clinton's backyard.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:45:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Susan (0.00 / 0)

Geesh.  She should be featured in a special called 'worst month ever'.  Have to believe Jepsen and tons of the others who were bitter over her first primary are celebrating.

---

by: kennadie @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:31:23 PM UTC

Bysiewicz is done if she doesn't stand-up, (4.00 / 3)

strong and fast. Why she hasn't held a press conference about the 10yr issue is beyond me. It's not as if the issue, or the whisper campaign, will be going away any time soon. (her best bet would be to define herself as a "career woman", keep a base, and hope that Staples and Jepsen stick around and split the anti-Susie vote.)

CTKeith used to say it best about Lieberman, "a base that's a mile wide, but only an inch deep." Does the same apply to Susie B.?

But like Lamont, Bysie is now in the position of having to fight the enitre Republican Party, and half her own. Sure, she can still point to her poll numbers, but I think the damage is done. Who wants to vote for a candidate who might be dis-qualified, when there are reasonable alternatives?

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:29:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lamont outpolled DeStefano in 2006 general election (0.00 / 0)

 DeStefano garnered 397,745 votes against Rell.  Lamont received 50k votes more against Lieberman: 448,000.

And that was before Lieberman's lies were known.  That was when 52% of the electorate said that Lieberman deserves to be reelected.  Now Lieberman's approval figures are in the 30%.  Does Pazniokas think that people will blame Lamont for running against Lieberman?  Or think more highly of him since Lamont was dead-on correct about LIEberman?  I think the latter.

And though Pazniokas wants to continue with his "narrow base" meme, a poll in April 2008 by Research 2000 showed that Lamont would win a rematch of the three-way race with a majority of 51% versus just 37% for Lieberman.  So a poll of statewide voters taken less than two years ago shows definitively that Lamont HAS INDEED expanded his base, and would win resoundingly in a race for United States Senator with a statewide majority, even in a three-way race!  And the same poll shows Lamont winning three-quarters of all Democratic voters.  That's a pretty expansive "base", if Mr. Pazniokas would care to look at voter registration statistics.

And let's keep in mind that, though Pazniokas wants to run with the meme that it's just too early, Lamont is running ahead of Rell's lieutenant governor Fedele.  Not a word in Pazniokas's piece about Fedele struggling to expand his "base".  Not a word about how extraordinary it is for Lamont to be running ahead of Rell's right-hand man.  

But did we expect anything but snark from a former Hartford Courant reporter?  This is the same newspaper that ran a banner headline sliming Chris Dodd's presidential campaign:  "Chris Dodd's Excellent Adventure".  Having trained at that place, should we ever expect better from him?

I don't.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 18:44:17 PM UTC

Rumor Mill (0.00 / 0)

Mark Warner speaking at this year's JJB?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 19:07:48 PM UTC

He's got Connecticut roots, (0.00 / 0)

But is he still a DLC member?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm...
http://mydd.com/users/gary-boa...

And Kronholm might want to pause and consider how Warner made his $$$. How smart is it to bring in a Wall Street/DC insider?

Tester, Feingold, Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Schumer....  

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:33:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Consider this part of Pazniokas's article: (0.00 / 0)

Here's more from Pazniokas's article:

"As an opponent of the war in Iraq, Lamont beat Lieberman in a nationally watched Democratic primary in 2006, helped by online, grass-roots activists who used the race as an outlet for their anger over the war and President Bush."

Really?  It was "online, grass-roots activists" who were just using the race to get at Bush?  Really?  It wasn't about Joe Lieberman?  Pazniokas gives Lieberman a pass here.  It's not about Lieberman; Ned was just a patsy who was being used as an "outlet".  

Still think Pazniokas wrote a fair article here?  BTW, Lamont leads Foley.  Anything in this article about Foley's needing to "expand his base"?  Of course not. Because conservative reporters like Pazniokas only believe that it's Democratic candidates who are narrowly supported by "online activists" and "liberals".  

Sure you still think this is a great work of fair and balanced journalism by a great journalist?  Or have we become so used to this sort of right-wing snark that we no longer can be bothered to be outraged by it?

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:20:03 PM UTC

Great to hear about Saramerica. (4.00 / 2)

Maybe CTLP shutting down was a loss to the CT Blogosphere but this is MLN's gain. :)


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:24:48 PM UTC

Woo-hoo! Sarahhhhh!!!! (4.00 / 3)

I'm so glad to see you parachute into MLN from the late and already lamented CTLP!  Congrats and welcome to the zoo, Ms. 'merica!

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 22:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or how 'bout this? (0.00 / 0)

Consider this part of Pazniokas's article:

Lieberman stayed in the race as a petitioning candidate and beat Lamont in November by 10 percentage points. Lamont never figured out how to expand his base.

Of course, Pazniokas ignores three years of polling showing that Lamont will clober Lieberman in a rematch, ignores two consecutive polls showing that Lamont is the frontrunner in this gubernatorial race, beating out every Republican candidate.

And of course Pazniokas ignores the fact that Lieberman lied through his teeth about always and forever being a loyal Democrat.  He also felt it was AOK to talk about Lamont's wealth he put into the campaign, but not mention a single word about the millions from conservative Republican fat cats who poured cash into Lieberman's campaign.  And you think this guy is a great "journalist"?

So where does this "can't expand his base" garbage come from?  He ignores every poll, and everything that's happened since the 2006 election.  

See any quotes from the Research 2000 polls showing Lamont winning 75% of Democratic votes and a majority of independent votes in a rematch?  Of course not.  Because this was nothing but a cheap hit-piece.

But what would you expect from a guy who could go on WNPR and state that coverage of Chris Dodd had been "fair"?  Listen to Pazniokas's take on coverage, then listen to Bill Curry tell the truth.  And you tell me which one was in touch with reality, and which one was channeling Fox News?

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 21:27:43 PM UTC

Another article by Pazniokas (0.00 / 0)

On his website there is another article about Jim Himes and his willingness to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill.

In it he writes that,

Himes unseated U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays in 2008, leaving New England without a Republican member of the House for the first time since the founding of the GOP.

No Republican in Congress?  Boo-hoo!

He was assisted by a huge turnout of urban Democrats who came to vote for Barack Obama.

That "urban Democrats" thing?  That's code for Black people.  It's a typical meme for conservative reporters that Jim Himes only won because "those people" came out to support him.  As if Black people voting is unnatural.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 23:18:07 PM UTC

Do you have the Bridgeport turnout numbers (0.00 / 0)

from 2006 & 2008?

And Stamford as well?

Is it unfair to suggest that a record black turnout was the difference in Himes winning by 3500 votes? Because I think it could well be the truth.

I know here in New Haven there were a whole slew of first time black voters, and yes, it had a lot to do with skin color and black pride.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 23:47:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bridgeport (0.00 / 0)

2008
=====
Himes 31,286
Shays 7,662

2006
====
Farrell 13,351
Shays 6,400

Himes won by about 12,000 votes overall.

http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li...

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 00:52:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks Scarce... (0.00 / 0)

So the Obama effect/Presidential cycle was worth more than 16,000 extra votes from Bridgeport alone?

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:34:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why didn't Pazniokas point out that it was White millionaires who... (0.00 / 0)

kept Shays in office all those years, rather than suggest that it was "urban Democrats" who were responsible for Jim Himes' win?  Has anyone taken a look at the returns from New Canaan and Darien every congressional election?  In fact, it was rich White voters in those two small towns, plus the margin in Greenwich who offset Democratic majorities in Stamford and Bridgeport for several years.  In fact, it was votes from those three towns that repeatedly provided Shays with his winning margin.

But Pazniokas doesn't attribute Shays's victories to that small group of rich White voters, preferring instead to paint Jim Himes' win as some sort of aberration.  

But that's OK?  We deserve a lot better reporting than this.  A lot better.  We've just become conditioned to such miserable biased articles, that if it doesn't quite rise to the level of really offensive, we give it a pass.

Pazniokas should cut out the stupid "rock star" comments, and he should take a very careful look at Ned Lamont's poll numbers and figure out that the data show that his meme about "trying to expand his base" is a load of crap.  Let's see if Pazniokas does his homework.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:17:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Zzzzzzzzzz.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:33:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Turnout in Bpt was down in 2008 (4.00 / 1)

... relative to 2004. 1000 more votes, but with 10000 more registered. The main difference for this discussion is that the drop-off (presidential voters who fail to vote for the under-ticket) was substantially less than in 04.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:31:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

2004 (0.00 / 0)

Farrell 23,760
Shays 9,946

So about 5000 more votes, plus whatever votes the minor parties got.

http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cw...

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:39:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BPT Turnouts (4.00 / 1)

Turns out my memory was a little wrong on the overall numbers, but the general higher reg/lower turnout % gist was correct:

04 Reg: 59467
04 Turnout: 36093 (60.7%)
04 Cong Votes: 33706 (6.7% dropoff)

08 Reg: 68656
08 Turnout: 40446 (58.9%)
08 Cong Votes: 38916 (3.8% dropoff)

I'm not saying that the "Bridgeport saved Himes" theory is wrong, but it's a genuinely complicated picture, with oddball statistical shifts (precinct by precinct) across the 4th. Even moreso looking at the individual precincts in Bridgeport, where some of the most predominantly black districts saw dramatic (5%) drops in voter turnout from 2004.

The one aspect where I think the campaign was really successful in Bridgeport was in convincing voters to vote for the whole party line -- that accounted for about 1200 votes in BPT alone. But that same drop in undervotes was pretty constant across the district (2.5% districtwide as opposed to 2.9% in Bridgeport by itself), so it's not really clear that the effort rose much above the static.

More interesting (to me) than the question of whether or not a specific candidate owes their election to Obama is their general theory and understanding of the electorate -- who they think the voters are, what they want, and how the candidate is going to successfully communicate with them. That's something that is difficult to see in detail unless you're on the staff, but even an outsider can see when a campaign (and candidate) has an overarching vision and when it doesn't. And that's the spirit in which I understood Paz's criticism of Lamont -- another way of describing the contrast between the confident pre-primary campaign and the confused post-primary one. At this point, there is no Himes campaign (word circulating is that they hired a campaign manager in the last week or so), so it's premature to try and figure out what their gameplan is. But by now, I think pretty much everyone at MLN can tell an organized, winning program from a disorganized one -- and this year, I think organization and effectiveness is going to be at a premium.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:12:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent point (0.00 / 0)

You pointed out that it was complicated in terms of turnout and total votes.  And yes, organization does matter, and there is sometimes turmoil internally.

But my point was that Connecticut journalists were mindlessly repeating the right-wing meme that Himes' election was an aberration, that he was ONLY elected because Black people, energized by Barack Obama, turned out in large numbers for the presidential vote and also cast their votes for Jim Himes and the Democratic ticket.  The implication of these journalists' meme is that Himes' victory is not legitimate due to his reliance on Black voters, and that he'll be defeated next time when Blacks stay home.

Of course they never bothered to print a single story that said that Shays only scraped through to reelection the previous two elections with the help of wealthy Whites in two of the district's smallest towns: New Canaan and Darien, which gave him over 70% of the vote.

It's OK to parrot right-wing talking points, but not,apparently, to actually examine the truth, as you did.  With a press corps that is exclusively White, though our two biggest cities in this district are strongly minority, I think it makes sense to call out reporters when they write stories that subtly diminish minority voters.  And that's part of what Pazniokas did.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 15:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

let the voters decide? (0.00 / 0)

On the FOI email list question, there is the disingenuous use of an FOI for the purpose of obtaining a list for solicitation, which bothers some people.  Since the SOTS wants to let the voters decide (rather than seek counsel before stuff gets out of hand), then it may bother her that it bothers them. Letting them decide may actually work out worse than letting the AG investigate and opine -- at least as far as the simple FOI goes (and not considering issues such as whether the list was deliberately made more extensive for political purposes.)

I took a look at the CT FOI statute.  CT has spelled out little about the handling of mailing lists, and has identified concrete and specific exceptions to the FOI that attempt to anticipate untoward uses of information gathered. For example, CTDOT is explicitly forbidden from giving out its email list.  No agency may provide in an FOI response any contact information on minors or on people who have filed to keep their whereabouts confidential. (So far,looks like people who have contacted the state and provided an unlisted number are SOL! No help for them!)

Obviously the state has a do not call list, but I am not sure whether the FOI exceptions regard the Do Not Call list as registering with the state for confidentiality.

As a practical matter, how many agencies track the ages of their contacts?  It would seem pretty difficult to ensure no minors were on your mailing lists, especially in agencies where students may contact them for help in understanding some aspect of government:  how elections are carried out, for example. If you cannot ensure minors have been removed or excluded, can you fulfill a mailing list request? (And if you can exclude them -- uh, WHY?)

The FOI statute says, essentially, that the FOI list of exceptions contains the only exceptions (as to when information must be provided), and any other law that acts to limit access to information by citizens takes a back seat to the intent of the FOI law to keep government information open. Because there is a "no exceptions to the exceptions" provision, I wonder if there is any wiggle room at all around the lone, specific email exception.  For example, if that email exception for CTDOT was written at a time when the only state email list was that of CTDOT, could an intent be inferred that would apply to other email lists?  IANAL so will get my popcorn and wait.

I would remind people that the SOTS office by statute runs the post-election audits, and the statute puts the ROVs who were ultimately in charge of the election also in charge of the post-election audit. Is that any more incestuous than FOIing yourself for your own mailing list?

It's odd that in her staff's issuing to her campaign the agency contact list, the SOTS, with attention on  seeking to further the AG candidacy,  may have simultaneously damaged people's estimation of her AG temperament and judgment while she also damaged her credibility as an evenhanded, play-no-favorites or no games administrator in the office in which she currently sits. If the AG candidacy doesn't work out, returning to the SOTS race may have gotten a tiny bit harder.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 00:09:43 AM UTC

. (0.00 / 0)

Is that any more incestuous than FOIing yourself for your own mailing list?

The legislative caucuses do this all the time. Both parties.

Obviously the state has a do not call list, but I am not sure whether the FOI exceptions regard the Do Not Call list as registering with the state for confidentiality.

Political campaigns are exempt from having to use the Do Not Call registry. Confidentiality probably means those who've applied to the Address Confidentiality Program (administered by the SOTS office).  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 03:24:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the perspective (0.00 / 0)

So it's a Hartford thing, and everybody does it, meaning that what NY does (making you promise not to use such lists for solicitation, so they say) is not going to have any political support to pass in CT.  Anyone who is put off by this simply has not a clue what goes on there.  Ok, I get it.  

Stamp on forehead: the reason there are loopholes in the laws in CT is ...probably on purpose?  

This is not just the garden variety FOI.  We are talking about the ability essentially to use subordinates or people you direct as proxies to FOI yourself in order to move information (that you have developed while on the state payroll)from the public to another domain without scrutiny of any kind from an outside party to me is problematic because of the potential for abuse.  

Someone the requestor does not direct or control should have to be involved imho.    

It does not inspire public confidence in Hartford when people realize this is considered an acceptable way to do things.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 05:31:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure (0.00 / 0)

But it also means that you can get a list of everyone your state rep has been communicating with quite easily. With rare exceptions, you can get huge datasets of anything stored on any computer from any public agency. It's not a loophole so much as a garden without any wall or fence.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 14:27:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm, I think there is a bigger issue that FOI doesn't really help elucidate (0.00 / 0)

FOI's generic benefits to the average citizen miss the point.  It's the conflict between the same person being both a chief elections official in which s/he controls employees and work product, and a candidate controlling employees and work product, requesting from herself (via her subordinates) something that she alone ultimately simultaneously has to evaluate not the release of the information, but that it was gathered only with one intent that served the fiduciary interests of the public.

Here is a quote from a NC manual on self dealing that starts to articulate the question.

The general rule stands upon our great moral obligation to refrain from placing ourselves in relations which ordinarily excite a conflict between self-interest and integrity. . . .

In effect, he is not allowed to unite the two opposite characters of buyer and seller, because his interests. . . are directly conflicting ...."

Source: http://ncdst-web2.treasurer.st...

Ergo, in some ways looking at FOI is a distraction from something that is more like an auditing question that comes up in the face of jumping into "a conflict between self interest and integrity" with both feet. It doesn't mean a contact list was created that included fields that were unnecessary for the state but great for campaign purposes (possible but have seen no smoking gun reported).  It means that when you wear both hats, you are at much greater risk of not seeing that clearly and should think through the implications of actual and perceived issues with it.  

It always bothers me when the public senses that and an official does not.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 03:54:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]