Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that they just wanted the private email addresses of constituents hidden. This I wholeheartedly agree with. When I write to a representative, I don't care if the words that are exchanged are made public, but I do care if my email address is. By allowing just anyone access to the addresses, it opens up any number of scenarios for abuse.

The Commissioners have already violated these laws....what is currently being done to hold them accountable for breaking the law? Did they swear an oath to uphold the law?

How about an answer to my question?

My question is to Neil, about what specifically is it that he has an issue with, the actual email addresses or more.

I don't really see that a question has been posed but one seems to be implied. Apparently it is too much to ask some folks to actually read the entire text of what I wrote on this subject or to watch the short video I provided a link to. I’ll take a stab at this anyway because defending the public’s right to an open government is what motivates me. It will take a few submittals though to meet Patch’s word limit requirements.

The point of this entire discussion boils down to one of having open government as opposed to one that is shrouded in secrecy. I devoted my 20 years in county and municipal public service to open government because I witnessed times when I saw politicians and management maneuver secrecy to their advantage or to the advantage of companies that they considered to be their "constituents" instead of the thousands of individual citizens who they were there to represent and who actually paid their salaries. For illustration I'll use a little 400 acre quarry project in New Windsor which Carroll Government chose to protect under a cloud of secrecy - shutting out the very citizens most impacted by the project. It was an intentional effort to keep those citizens in the dark about that project and its possible impacts on their community.

That one instance almost predated the use of e mail communications but had citizens known how to use the PIA more effectively they would have uncovered a virtual conspiracy between their local government and that company to expedite the project while keeping information about it secret.
Now move the clock forward to 2012 when e mail is frequently used by those in government and the public. If individuals with a company proposing something of the same scale were to be communicating back and forth with elected officials and county managers by either regular mail or e mail, then those communications should be part of the public record. The e mail addresses could reveal who is communicating with those in government and to redact them would be no different than having the County Attorney use scissors to cut off the letterhead on a letter sent to the government - to hide or shield the identity of the sender. The text of the communication is made more understandable by knowing the identity of the sender.

. For example, if a letter were sent to the Director of Public Works by BillSmith@GeneralMotors.com it may make the context of the communication better understood by the reader, just as it would if Bill Smith sent the Director of Public Works a letter on General Motors letterhead. If that letter came on a plain sheet of paper with just the name “Bill” at the bottom of it, the reader may be challenged to understand both the context of the letter and just who Bill is. We all have the ability to shield our identities in e mails by using an address such as Bill@gmail.com and if that’s what we prefer for whatever reason then those who have the e mail address haven’t much an understand of who the sender / receiver is – and that’s also part of the rule which the PIA provides. That's an extreme case but the bottom line is that the current PIA is there to make these communications available to the public, not shield identities. If you want to shield your identity for whatever reason or just have a clever e address, that is your right.

Some are arguing that making the e mail addresses available to the public opens the sender / recipient up to those who would have nefarious use of that information. It's a concern that I am not sure is a valid one as someone’s merely having a person's e mail address doesn't necessarily expose them to virus, hackers, or such malicious uses. It does expose them to receiving spam or unwanted e mail from a person or companies using them as an advertising base but that's what I use my delete key for, as well as spam blockers, blocked senders list, and virus protection systems. We all know to be guarded with information about our identities, social security numbers and banking information in this age when someone can actually get your credit card number by having a scanner in your vicinity. This is a personal responsibility for responsible people.

If the County had an informative, non-partisan newsletter to send out monthly, it should be sent to as many people as possible by asking people to subscribe to it. This Board of Commissioners has chosen to send only politically based messages from each Commissioner to a select group of individuals. If they want to do that from personal ISPs that is their right to do so but to use the County offices, staff and IT network is ethically wrong. If they use the County Government offices as their personal political headquarters then they have to play by the rules of open government – the MD PIA – and those who choose (emphasis on CHOOSE) to communicate with government officials by e mail have to accept that rule as well. Trying to change the rule, as the Carroll Delegation is attempting, is merely an attempt to make the rule more accommodating to politicians and those who can’t learn to accept the responsibility that comes with communication by e mail within the rule.
I apologize for the length of this response. I won’t be further engaging the discussion here but readers are certainly welcome to comment as they feel the urge.

Native, you are incorrect on both counts, as are the Carroll Commissioner's in their assertion on the Federal Law. You and they are intentionally misinterpeting the FOIA to serve your purposes in this discussion. I won't attempt to use this blog as a point-counterpoint with you but if you'd like to buy me lunch I'd be glad to meet and discuss it with you. Otherwise, I suggest you take the time to try writing your own blog on this subject on Patch and just why it is you are so fearful of in having your identity revealed.
I return you all now to your regular station and programming.

Florida's Sunshine Laws were written over 100 years ago. We could take a lesson from them. Here is a bit of the Florida Sunshine Law, regarding email addresses, taken from their Sunshine Law Manual which can be found at http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8RAQUF/$file/2012-SunshineManual.pdf

Page 58:
c. E-Mail
E-mail messages made or received by agency officers and employees in connection with official business are public records and subject to disclosure in the absence of an exemption. AGO 96¬-34. Accord AGO 01-20. And see s. 668.6076, F.S., requiring agencies that operate a website and use electronic mail to post the following statement in a conspicuous location on the agency website: “Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.”

You will see that statement in quotes on all of FL state and county website. Simple solution!

Page 17 is also interesting; it addresses restrictions on commissioners communicating via email, outside of regular open meetings.

Nice try Bub. Now go spend the time doing some real research and writing your own blog on it. Maybe I'll actualy comment on it then if the weather isn't as nice as it was today and I have nothing else to do.

C'mon Neil, work with me here. All I'm asking about is the email privacy issue. I've provided proof supporting my side, how about you? All I get from you is bloviating! At least Bonnie made an attempt, & I admire her for that. Prove your point, that's all I want.

If I had an ego I'd be tweaked. As it is, bloviate this!
Try actually proving your point and writing something longer than one sentence long. You might also try using a real name whenever you attempt writing something convincing.

Ok, fine. Typical of a liberal. Straight out of Alinski's playbook. Evade the issue, attack the opponent, run away. Driveby media at it's finest.

My, my. Thank you Buck for being so succinct.

Editor - I apologise for my liberal friend's choice of wording...