LANOSGA: And you thought the feds were secretive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

LanosgaGovernment secrecy is big news these days. Recent stories have revealed confidential federal programs to collect massive amounts of data from cell phone and Internet companies. What’s more, the programs were authorized by secret orders of a secret court. The only reason we know about these things that government is doing in our name—and with our money—is that information was leaked to journalists.

The revelations have spawned a million commentaries, and there’s no need for me to add to them. But one thing has been echoing in my head lately, a comment a local political activist recently made.

“Some of the most secret governments are on the local level,” he told me.

That might be a bit over the top considering the creepy Orwellian stuff we know about the feds, but it’s worth stopping to think about the things state and local governments are keeping from you. They are legion and often perfectly legal, thanks to Indiana’s expansive restrictions on information.

As I’ve mentioned before, the state’s Access to Public Records Act contains numerous exceptions to public disclosure. There are 13 categories of explicitly confidential records and another 24 categories for which public officials are given discretion to withhold.

Here’s a fun challenge: Can you guess how often officials choose to release these discretionary records? I’ll buy coffee for anyone who can show me an example.

The access law, by the way, is not the final word on secret records. The law’s first two exceptions are broad catchalls for any records declared confidential by statute or agency rule. Naturally, there are a multitude of such declarations.

Now, it should be said that many of these categories of confidential records make sense. Reasonable people understand there is some information that shouldn’t be released—Social Security numbers, blueprints of government buildings and scoring keys for licensing exams come to mind.

The concern with these restrictions, though, is that they are so broad and sometimes so poorly defined that they allow government agencies to withhold far more information than is reasonable under common-sense notions.

An example: the “discretionary” exception for law enforcement investigatory records. No one would argue the public should be able to see a list of confidential informants or detectives’ notes in open cases. But what about closed cases? Do investigatory records ever stop being investigatory? The law doesn’t say.

In practice, agencies have interpreted this exception as mandatory and have used it to withhold a huge swath of information. Just last month, the Indianapolis Fire Department tried to withhold routine inspection reports on businesses in the Belmont Street fire, citing the investigatory exception.

Incidentally, Indiana law enforcement agencies, like federal agencies, are authorized to hide information regarding investigations relating to sensitive criminal matters, including terrorism. A new law, in fact, allows them to refuse to even acknowledge the existence of such records.

And did you know that, by rule, Indiana courts can have cases that are completely shielded from public disclosure? Such cases wouldn’t even show up in a computer search of a court’s active caseload.

Does all this make you wonder what government agencies are up to here in Indiana? It should, and that’s a healthy impulse—an instinct of suspicion toward the exercise of hidden power that predates the republic. The political philosopher Gunter Grass said, “The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open.”

It’s a good idea to keep your eyes open as well.•


Lanosga is an assistant professor of journalism at Indiana University and president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.