Yesterday, Gregg let us know that The Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) won their public records case against the City and today, the Tribune has an article about it.
Finally. The City has been taken to task for their refusal to practice open government.
On page 3 of the order: "On November 6, 2007, The Montana Newspaper Association filed a Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief .
On page 8, " Amicus also emphasizes that trade secret protection is not available to non-individuals".
Does this ruling also mean that SME can no longer hold the City hostage by claiming that City staff cannot disclose what is discussed at the SME board meetings?
Finally. The City has been taken to task for their refusal to practice open government.
On page 3 of the order: "On November 6, 2007, The Montana Newspaper Association filed a Motion For Leave To File Amicus Curiae Brief .
On page 8, " Amicus also emphasizes that trade secret protection is not available to non-individuals".
Does this ruling also mean that SME can no longer hold the City hostage by claiming that City staff cannot disclose what is discussed at the SME board meetings?
6 comments:
No, it doesn't mean that. The issue of trade secret protection was not decided in this case.
But could this ruling be used if the City elected to pursue the issue?
If the City elected to pursue the issue, it would not need a ruling. Remember, the City already has access to the SME information.
The City is choosing to follow SME's directives not to disclose it.
Thanks very much Gregg. Do appreciate the Law 101 lessons (-:
NO more of SME's 'Jedi (dark side!) mind control' over the city hall!
The only questions that need be asked by us of the City is, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let us see the papers requested? Since you won't let us see the papers, what is it that YOU'RE hiding?"
Post a Comment