January 2009 marks the start of a new year, with a new President in the White House and new Governors in a number of states, including North Carolina and Missouri. Two outgoing governors, North Carolina Governor Michael Easley and Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, faced intense conflict with the media during 2008 over the issue of retention of and public access to government e-mail messages under relevant public records laws. The conflicts were often heated but were ultimately resolved in anti-climatic fashion in the final days of their respective administrations.
In North Carolina, Governor Easley had a public clash with local media organizations when it was reported that the Governor’s staff may have directed state agencies to routinely delete e-mails received in the course of government business. The allegations were made following the termination of the state Department of Health and Human Services’ public information officer for, reportedly, failure to comply with public records requests. As the story unfolded, the news media reported that the Governor had established a policy that allowed state employees to delete messages that had only "short-term" value or no "reference" value.
Like many states, North Carolina has a public records statute that plainly provides a right of public access to e-mail. Section 132-1(a) provides, in relevant part:
“Public record” or “public records” shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions.
The public records statute further provides that “public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people” and that “the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law.”
Given the clear statutory language and the absence in the public records statute of any blanket e-mail exemption, media advocates disagreed with the Governor's policy that permitted e-mail messages received in the course of transacting agency business to be deleted. In March 2008, the Governor appointed a panel to review executive office policies concerning the retention of e-mail under the state’s public records law. Then, in April 2008 several news organizations filed a lawsuit to enforce the public records law with respect to the Governor’s e-mail policy. The committee made its recommendations in May 2008.
On January 9, 2009—his last day in office—Governor Easley signed an Executive Order adopting a new e-mail policy making clear that “e-mail messages sent and received in connection with state business are public records.” Of course, this finding is consistent with and, in fact, compelled by the public records statute. The full text of the order, which requires 13 points of action, is provided here.
One significant aspect of the order is that it requires state executive branch employees to retain e-mail messages sent or received in the course of conducting state business for at least 24 hours. Relatedly, the order requires e-mail messages to be backed up at least once daily and for backup tapes to be kept for at least 10 years; this means that all e-mails should theoretically be available in some electronic form for at least 10 years, although obtaining access to e-mail messages available only on backup tapes may be problematic from a practical standpoint.
The order also requires employees who conduct public business using personal e-mail accounts or personal devices (e.g., Blackberrys) to ensure that all public records are properly retained and archived—obviously, this requires employees to take initiative to retain these e-mails and make them accessible to the agency for archiving and to the public for inspection. The order further directs executive branch employees to treat e-mails they send or receive via government e-mail accounts as public records and to handle those e-mails in accordance with the public records statute; however, the order also appears to leave the determination whether or not to delete e-mail messages (after the 24-hour holding period) to employees.
It is unclear whether newly inaugurated Governor Beverly Perdue will let the Executive Order stand as it is or issue a new or different one.
Beginning in 2007 and lasting through 2008, Missouri Governor Blunt had a similar experience regarding retention of government e-mail. In late 2007, media organizations reported that members of the Governor’s staff may have deleted government-related e-mail messages in violation of Missouri’s public records law. As in North Carolina, a lawsuit was filed concerning the Governor’s e-mail retention policies. Then, on January 5, 2009, only days before Governor Blunt’s term expired and the day trial was scheduled to begin, the court hearing the case approved a settlement agreement that requires a review and report of the Governor’s e-mail retention policies. According to press reports, allegations that the Governor’s office had “‘knowingly and purposely’” violated the state public records statute were dismissed.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- Education
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Court Dockets
- Access to Search Warrants
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services