“Changes to the manual reflect new legislation, recent court decisions and a fresh look at previous interpretations of the law. Key changes include:

• “The manual revisits a longstanding legal interpretation that allowed public bodies to take as much time responding to public records requests as they could justify under the nebulous standard of “reasonableness.”  Focusing on the language of the law, the new manual clarifies that it is the public’s right of inspection that must be reasonable. Thus, public bodies must make records available as quickly as they reasonably can.  The manual suggests that 10 working days should usually be a sufficient amount of time to respond to typical records requests, while recognizing that more time may be required under some circumstances.[I.D 4, Page 11]
• “The Attorney General can examine state agency fees if it appears that the true purpose of the fees is to effectively deny the request rather than recoup costs as the law allows. The manual previously opined that the Attorney General had no authority to review state agency fees.[I. D 6(b)(1), Page 17]
• “When deciding whether a fee waiver or fee reduction is appropriate, the public interest in disclosing a document must be considered.  Previously, the manual invited public bodies to consider how much it would burden them to waive or reduce their fees, without requiring them to put the public’s interest in disclosure on the other side of the scales. [I. D6(b)(2)]
• “The general discussion of exemptions has been revised to more closely follow the way in which public bodies typically consider requests.  The goal is to encourage pro-transparency decisions. [I. E, Page 23]
• “The section describing the process for appealing a public body’s decision has been completely reorganized.  It is now more accurate and, hopefully, easier to follow.[I. G, Page 106]
• “In addition to these revisions, there are numerous changes to improve clarity, precision, consistency and accuracy; to avoid redundancy; and to make the manual more current.”
• To order a copy, fill out this form on the Department of Justice Web site.
• The free online version of the manual can be found here.

Read Senate Bill 41

Read Senate Bill 47

Oregon spends about $350 million per biennium on programs designed to promote economic development, mostly by providing tax breaks to companies that create new jobs.

Oregonians need a clear picture of what they’re getting from these programs, both because of their big price tag and because it’s essential that the expenditures yield actual results. The state Legislature will consider a bill in its 2011 session that would give people a better view of economic development programs’ cost and effectiveness. Read the full editorial.

Published: Monday, Jan 3, 2011

Interested persons may receive meeting notices and agendas by email or conventional mail one week prior to each meeting. To receive a notice, call the office of the Oregon State Chief Information Officer at (503) 378-3175.

After six months of town hall meetings around Oregon and receiving written comments, Attorney General John Kroger has issued his Government Transparency Report that summarizes the frustrations many Oregonians have with the state’s public records and meetings laws. The report, which also includes studies of other state laws, concludes that the 2011 Legislature should “address a number of problem areas” that include “excessive fees, lengthy delays and unnecessary exemptions.” In addition, Kroger has placed the 2010 Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual online for free access to Oregonians.

This is an indexed, online, version of the most recently updated manual. Use the Table of Contents or Search.

Attorney General’s 2008 Public Records and Meetings Manual (pdf file)

This 2008 manual is organized in two parts:

• Part I discusses the Public Records Law
• Part II discusses the Public Meetings Law

Each part is followed by its own set of appendices which include answers to commonly asked questions about the law, sample forms, summaries of court decisions, Attorney General opinions, and a reprint of the statutes. Each part of the manual also has a table of cases and a topic index.

I can not confirm
Whether that man lives or dies
If you have no name
- A HIPAA Haiku, by Andy Dworkin

A new federal law called HIPAA (for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is making life difficult for reporters who have to call a hospital, doctor, nurse, paramedic or other health worker to get information about a patient. The law limits the amount of information that any health worker who electronically transmits information (i.e. basically all health workers) can give about patients. It is especially causing trouble for people working cops shifts.

While the law is very long and complicated, here is a summary of what reporters should know:

- You must already know the patient’s name to get any information. Hospitals, etc., will generally give you a patient’s one-word condition (good, fair, serious, critical, dead) if you tell them the person’s name. They are also supposed to tell you generally where they are in the hospital (the OR, ICU, recovery, etc.) but usually don’t unless you ask them.

- If you have the name wrong, or no name, you’ll get nothing. Health folks are very scared because HIPAA violations have big penalties (fines up to $50,000 and criminal charges). So they won’t say, “Oh, it’s Melanie Johns, not Melanie Johnson.” They also will no longer identify or give information based just on descriptions, such as “the 60-year-old man who had his leg ripped off by pit bulls in Downtown Portland.” You have to know the name.

- Therefore, try to get and double-check the patient’s name before you call. If it’s a cops story, get it from them, with spelling and as much other information as possible (age, home town, etc.). That way you can check against public records  and see if the spelling seems right – and if it’s not use other info. to trackdown the name.

- Even if you know the name, you may get nothing. The law lets patients “opt out” of information. If a patient opts out, the health provider probably won’t tell you anything – including whether the person is even a patient there or not.

- The flip side is that patients can agree to release as much information as they want. They also can sign forms giving doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. permission to release information about them and their care. Hospital PR people are usually willing to ask patients to talk to the media, and sign a form, but that takes time. If the PR people don’t want to ask, remind them that it is their job to ask, and they can’t refuse for the patient – only the patient can agree to give or withhold information.

- The obvious problem is that patients can’t always discuss federal health privacy law, especially those we encounter on cops shifts. They may be unconscious, in shock or otherwise not discussing privacy laws. Generally, if the patient hasn’t said anything, hospitals are interpreting it to mean they haven’t “opted out,” and will give condition information if you have their name. But they may decide to give nothing.

In this situation, you have a few arguments. A doctor can release information if it’s in the best interests of the patient. You can try getting to the doctor and pointing out that we’re going to be writing about the person anyway, and it is certainly in their best interest to have friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that read the story know that they are not dead, but just in serious but stable condition (or whatever).

Also, a person can choose a representative to speak for them for HIPAA purposes. Sometimes, representatives make care decisions for patients, too – such as parents for children, spouses of people in comas, etc. Those people also can make HIPAA decisions for you.

- If you get too much run-around from PR people, or think they are misinterpreting the law, you can ask to speak to the privacy officer. Every hospital has one, and they are the higher HIPAA authority.

- Finally, we encourage reporters to note for readers why they are not getting information they expect to get. For instance, “hospital officials refused to release information about the victim, citing federal privacy laws.”

The law is very long and complicated. Here is a summary:

• You must know the patient’s name to get any information. Hospitals, etc., will generally give you a patient’s one-word condition (good, fair, serious, critical, dead) if you tell them the person’s name. If they tell you the condition they also should tell you where they are in the hospital (the OR, ICU, recovery, etc.) but usually won’t unless you ask them.
• If you have the name wrong, or no name, you’ll get nothing. Health folks are very scared because HIPAA violations carry big penalties (fines up to $50,000 and criminal charges). So they don’t say, “Oh, it’s Melanie Johns, not Melanie Johnson.” They also no longer give information based on descriptions, such as “the 60-year-old man who had his leg ripped off by pit bulls in Downtown Portland.” You need the name.
• So try to get and double-check the patient’s name before calling the hospital. Cops, state and county officials, witnesses, etc. may know the name. If it’s a wreck, and you get the license plate, you can check the owner’s name against DMV records. This sounds obvious, but also get a spelling and as much other identifying information as possible (age, home town, etc.). That lets you check the name against public records and see if it’s correct and gives you other information to track down a wrong name. My last cops shift, for instance, a Portland Police PIO told me a driver’s name was Lindsey K. Delashmotl, 18, of Southwest Portland. No such name in DMV. So I searched for all Lindsey D-s in Portland, and found an 18-year-old named Lindsey DeLashmutt, the correct spelling.
• Even with a name, you may get nothing. The law lets patients “opt out,” in which case the health provider is supposed to say nothing, including whether the person is even there or not.
• The flip side is that patients can release as much information as they want. They also can sign forms giving doctors, nurses, PIOs, etc., permission to discuss them and their care. At your request, hospital PR people usually will ask patients to talk to the media and sign a release, though that takes time. If the PR people won’t ask, point out that it is their job to ask and that they can’t refuse for the patient — only the patient can agree to give or withhold information.
• Obviously patients can’t always opt in or out. They may be unconscious, in shock or otherwise not up for discussing federal privacy law. If a patient has said nothing, hospitals generally interpret it to mean they have not “opted out,” and will give condition info. if you have their name. But they may still claim they can give nothing.  This situation offers two hopes. A doctor can release information if she or he decides it is in their patient’s best interest. You can try getting to the doctor and arguing that, since we’re going to be writing about the person anyway, it is certainly in their best interest to have their friends, family, coworkers and neighbors know they are not dead but just in serious but stable condition (or whatever).
• Also, a patient can choose a representative to speak for them for HIPAA purposes. Representatives sometimes make care decisions for patients, too – such as parents for children, spouses of people in comas, etc. If a patient isn’t in a condition to talk, those people can make HIPAA decisions for them.
• Hospitals generally won’t tell you if a patient has been treated and released. All they’ll say now is that a person is “no longer in this facility,” or something similar, leaving you to connect the dots. Also, they don’t keep information on where they’ve been released to (home, a nursing home, morgue, etc.).
• If you get the run-around from hospital PR people, or think they are misinterpreting the law, you can ask to speak to the privacy officer. Every hospital has one. They are the higher HIPAA authority.

Click on UTCR3-180 to get full rule on “public access coverage” that means cameras in courtrooms.