Ben,
I need an A- in this class (I think I'm close?) Then I would get straight As this semester. What a great way to end my undergraduate career, huh? Well... I thought I'd try. Thanks for a great semester. :) I learned a lot.
Shawna
Monday, May 4, 2009
Public records request denial causes concern for WSU community
Despite hard economic times and imminent budget cuts, Washington State University denies public records request despite boasting the importance of transparency.
Students have voiced their concerns regarding the budget process and have criticized the Washington State University administration and the Washington Legislature.
Additionally, due to the looming threat of layoffs, the administrative and professional staffs are concerned with the lack of disclosure regarding the budget process.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3.3 million Americans have become unemployed during the last five months. The national unemployment rate is now 8.5 percent.
In March, Washington State’s unemployment rate increased to 9.2 percent, an increase of .8 percent from the previous month. Whitman County’s unemployment rate has also increased by .8 percent to 5.8 percent.
Washington is currently facing an almost $9 billion deficit through mid-2011 despite a statewide hiring freeze implemented by Gov. Christine Gregoire in August 2008.
Gregoire ordered all Washington state colleges and universities to implement a hiring freeze while simultaneously reducing travel and equipment expenses.
Washington State University President Elson S. Floyd implemented a similar hiring freeze in April 2008. Floyd significantly slowed the pace of administrative and professional hiring.
As a result of the freeze, 215 fewer people were hired during May and December 2008 as compared to the same period in 2007, said Matthew A. Skinner, associate budget director. This means that there were nearly 50 percent fewer positions filled.
“The initial hiring freeze has proven to have been a prudent step. By slowing the rate of hiring last April, it has resulted in less people being laid off due to budget cuts,” Executive Director of Budgeting and Planning, Joan S. King said.
On Apr. 26, the Washington Legislature completed the state’s operating and capital budget. The legislature suggests that higher education be cut by 21.5 percent or $112.3 million over the next two years.
This figure assumes a 14 percent tuition increase for resident undergraduates; an increase of $870 next year.
Washington State University’s preliminary budget is aimed at cutting services, travel, hiring and expenditures, course reductions and the elimination or consolidation of several academic programs.
The decrease in state funding also necessitates that 370 employees be let go. Though 160 positions are already vacant, 210 currently filled positions or 3.3 percent of all Washington State University employees will be let go due to budget restraints.
The state legislature’s decrease in funding for higher education is the largest total budget reduction in history.
All of this information was not made public until Apr. 27 despite a public record’s request filed with the Office of Forms and Procedures in late March.
In December, WSU created a 15-member budget committee to oversee the expected reductions in the university’s operating budget. The committee is co-chaired by President Floyd and Provost and Executive Vice President Warwick M. Bayly.
In order to better prepare for the impending budget cuts, the budget committee requested that all university deans, vice presidents and chancellors prepare a 12 percent and 18 percent budget reduction scenario.
Documents pertaining to these scenarios were requested in order to analyze possible trends amongst colleges and departments regarding cuts in expenditures.
The public records were withheld in accordance with RCW 42.56.280, which provides that “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, etc. are exempt from disclosure until publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action,” Linda Nelson, public records coordinator said.
After contacting the Student Law Press Center to verify the legality of the denial, Mike Hiestand, an SPLC legal consultant said, “Just because the law may give them the option to withhold these records -- it is not mandatory -- does not mean that it is the right thing to do.”
“The university is choosing not to release these documents,” SPLC intern, Lisa Waananen said.
With the state legislature announcing alarming budget figures and proposals, the WSU community is wondering how the pending cuts are going to affect the university.
“I would hope the university would be dedicated to fully informing the public throughout the entire decision-making process,” Waananen said.
“Particularly in these times, when Washington state schools face extraordinary budget cuts that will require huge changes in what is funded and how, the public -- the owners of that education system -- ought to be made privy to all accurate information that could assist them in weighing in and having their concerns heard,” Hiestand said.
The preliminary budget is now available online. In addition, the budget committee is seeking comments and suggestions from students, faculty and staff regarding the preliminary budget.
---
References:
Matthew A. Skinner
Associate Director of Budget
(509) 335-1836
Joan S. King
Executive Director of Budget and Planning
(509) 335-9681
Linda Nelson
Public Records Coordinator
(509) 335-3928
Mike Hiestand
SPLC Attorney
(202) 777-3609
Lissa Waananen
SPLC Intern
(763) 242-8095
“Current Employment Situation”. Workforce Explorer: Washington. Washington State Employment Security Department. Retrieved 24 Mar. 2009, <http://www.workforceexplorer.com/cgi/dataanalysis/?PAGEID=148>.
Students have voiced their concerns regarding the budget process and have criticized the Washington State University administration and the Washington Legislature.
Additionally, due to the looming threat of layoffs, the administrative and professional staffs are concerned with the lack of disclosure regarding the budget process.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 3.3 million Americans have become unemployed during the last five months. The national unemployment rate is now 8.5 percent.
In March, Washington State’s unemployment rate increased to 9.2 percent, an increase of .8 percent from the previous month. Whitman County’s unemployment rate has also increased by .8 percent to 5.8 percent.
Washington is currently facing an almost $9 billion deficit through mid-2011 despite a statewide hiring freeze implemented by Gov. Christine Gregoire in August 2008.
Gregoire ordered all Washington state colleges and universities to implement a hiring freeze while simultaneously reducing travel and equipment expenses.
Washington State University President Elson S. Floyd implemented a similar hiring freeze in April 2008. Floyd significantly slowed the pace of administrative and professional hiring.
As a result of the freeze, 215 fewer people were hired during May and December 2008 as compared to the same period in 2007, said Matthew A. Skinner, associate budget director. This means that there were nearly 50 percent fewer positions filled.
“The initial hiring freeze has proven to have been a prudent step. By slowing the rate of hiring last April, it has resulted in less people being laid off due to budget cuts,” Executive Director of Budgeting and Planning, Joan S. King said.
On Apr. 26, the Washington Legislature completed the state’s operating and capital budget. The legislature suggests that higher education be cut by 21.5 percent or $112.3 million over the next two years.
This figure assumes a 14 percent tuition increase for resident undergraduates; an increase of $870 next year.
Washington State University’s preliminary budget is aimed at cutting services, travel, hiring and expenditures, course reductions and the elimination or consolidation of several academic programs.
The decrease in state funding also necessitates that 370 employees be let go. Though 160 positions are already vacant, 210 currently filled positions or 3.3 percent of all Washington State University employees will be let go due to budget restraints.
The state legislature’s decrease in funding for higher education is the largest total budget reduction in history.
All of this information was not made public until Apr. 27 despite a public record’s request filed with the Office of Forms and Procedures in late March.
In December, WSU created a 15-member budget committee to oversee the expected reductions in the university’s operating budget. The committee is co-chaired by President Floyd and Provost and Executive Vice President Warwick M. Bayly.
In order to better prepare for the impending budget cuts, the budget committee requested that all university deans, vice presidents and chancellors prepare a 12 percent and 18 percent budget reduction scenario.
Documents pertaining to these scenarios were requested in order to analyze possible trends amongst colleges and departments regarding cuts in expenditures.
The public records were withheld in accordance with RCW 42.56.280, which provides that “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, etc. are exempt from disclosure until publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action,” Linda Nelson, public records coordinator said.
After contacting the Student Law Press Center to verify the legality of the denial, Mike Hiestand, an SPLC legal consultant said, “Just because the law may give them the option to withhold these records -- it is not mandatory -- does not mean that it is the right thing to do.”
“The university is choosing not to release these documents,” SPLC intern, Lisa Waananen said.
With the state legislature announcing alarming budget figures and proposals, the WSU community is wondering how the pending cuts are going to affect the university.
“I would hope the university would be dedicated to fully informing the public throughout the entire decision-making process,” Waananen said.
“Particularly in these times, when Washington state schools face extraordinary budget cuts that will require huge changes in what is funded and how, the public -- the owners of that education system -- ought to be made privy to all accurate information that could assist them in weighing in and having their concerns heard,” Hiestand said.
The preliminary budget is now available online. In addition, the budget committee is seeking comments and suggestions from students, faculty and staff regarding the preliminary budget.
---
References:
Matthew A. Skinner
Associate Director of Budget
(509) 335-1836
Joan S. King
Executive Director of Budget and Planning
(509) 335-9681
Linda Nelson
Public Records Coordinator
(509) 335-3928
Mike Hiestand
SPLC Attorney
(202) 777-3609
Lissa Waananen
SPLC Intern
(763) 242-8095
“Current Employment Situation”. Workforce Explorer: Washington. Washington State Employment Security Department. Retrieved 24 Mar. 2009, <http://www.workforceexplorer.com/cgi/dataanalysis/?PAGEID=148>.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Beat Articles
"Letters address governor, funding"
From staff reports
The Daily Evergreen
"New college graduates facing tough job market"
USA Today
From staff reports
The Daily Evergreen
"New college graduates facing tough job market"
USA Today
Monday, April 20, 2009
Questions for Bill Morlin
1. Being a student at Washington State University, a school closely located to Spokane, I have covered the Jim West scandal in nearly every communication class. In my ethics class, we discussed whether the investigative reporting done by the Spokesman-Review (and inherently, yourself) was ethical. Looking back, would you have done anything differently?
2. Do you really believe that the Jim West story was a need to know or a want to know? Especially considering that the FBI never found any information indicating that he was abusing his office. And he was never linked the the sexual abuse scandal in the 70s.
3. Where do you draw the line in investigative journalism? Arguably, Mayor Jim West's reputation was severely tarnished, does selling a newspaper come at the expense of other people's lives?
4. Do you believe it is the role to watchdog government's, corporations and society? Is this where journalism is headed or has it always been this way?
5. Why you do find investigative journalism important in today's society?
6. Why do you think the Polygimist sect went unchecked for so long? It wasn't until teenagers started giving birth that people started paying attention. Wouldn't the idea of polygamy be taboo enough to catch society's attention?
7. Or, is it that it's too taboo for today's readers? We'd rather that the topic just not exist at all and it wasn't until a more socially accepted taboo was exposed that we began to look at the larger picture? Is this the role of investigate journalists? Find one piece of a story and use it as a tool to expose a larger trend?
2. Do you really believe that the Jim West story was a need to know or a want to know? Especially considering that the FBI never found any information indicating that he was abusing his office. And he was never linked the the sexual abuse scandal in the 70s.
3. Where do you draw the line in investigative journalism? Arguably, Mayor Jim West's reputation was severely tarnished, does selling a newspaper come at the expense of other people's lives?
4. Do you believe it is the role to watchdog government's, corporations and society? Is this where journalism is headed or has it always been this way?
5. Why you do find investigative journalism important in today's society?
6. Why do you think the Polygimist sect went unchecked for so long? It wasn't until teenagers started giving birth that people started paying attention. Wouldn't the idea of polygamy be taboo enough to catch society's attention?
7. Or, is it that it's too taboo for today's readers? We'd rather that the topic just not exist at all and it wasn't until a more socially accepted taboo was exposed that we began to look at the larger picture? Is this the role of investigate journalists? Find one piece of a story and use it as a tool to expose a larger trend?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Because 'We' Post on Blogs...
I thought this was interesting, especially since as a class we all post on our blogs for school and this was a University that was punishing a student for her blog postings. It really affects me because I write stories about WSU and am somewhat critical.
Nina Yoder was a nursing student at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. On March 2, 2009 the school dismissed Yoder stating that she had violated the school’s honor code by “posting blog items concerning patients activities and naming the university on her MySpace page” (Associated Press, 2009). Yoder’s attorney, Daniel Canon, is arguing that the postings were mostly political and did not identify patients. The nursing student’s blog covered topics including suicide, religion, sex, guns and politics. “She mentioned the university several times but revealed no patient names in postings” (Associated, 2009). The University of Louisville told Yoder she could not continue in the nursing program because of her blog posts. As a result, the University labeled Yoda as a “persona non grata”, literally “an unwelcome person” and was immediately withdrawn from classes.
Yoder appealed to U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson on March 13, 2009. She asked the court to issue an injunction that would allow her to return to classes and graduate in August. A hearing has not yet been scheduled to hear Yoder’s motion. Yoder’s case mirrors a national trend among colleges and universities seeking to exercise some control over what students are able to do and say off campus and on the Internet. “Students at universities around the country, including high-profile cases in Georgia and Colorado, have faced disciplinary action for their online postings” (Associated, 2009).
Yoder’s attorney, Daniel Canon, argues that his client’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as granted by the First Amendment, has been violated by the University of Louisville. All nursing students at the University of Louisville sign an honor code that states, “[all students must adhere to] the highest standards of honesty, integrity, accountability, confidentiality, and professionalism” (Associated, 2009). Though Yoder had signed this document, Canon argues, “Public institutions can’t restrict speech. [The honor code is] too vague and regardless of the code any attempts to limit student speech are unconstitutional” (Bullard, 2009). In addition, while Yoder was granted the right to appeal her dismissal, which was denied, she was offered no hearing to present evidence and witnesses in her defense.
In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 502 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the right of students to express their views in a quiet, symbolic manner that is non-disruptive to the educational process. Three high school students wore black armbands to school to protest American involvement in Vietnam. This act violated a recently adopted Des Moines, Iowa school district policy against such expression. As a result, the three students were suspended from school. The federal district court and the court of appeals found in favor of the school district. The lower court decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. In the majority opinion written by Justice Fortas states, “conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason—whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech” (Tedford and Herbeck, 2005).
According to the Tinker decision, Yoder should be allowed to return to school and graduate in August. Yoder’s MySpace blog posed no disruptions to the classroom environment. In addition, the blog posts were a form of political expression conducted in a non-disruptive manner according to time, place, and manner restrictions and should therefore be protected by the First Amendment.
Lacking many traditional barriers, the Internet has rapidly become a medium for a wide range of expression. Unlike traditional media outlets, the Internet has no gatekeepers. Because of this, it has become a forum for political speech and individual expression. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress included a provision known as the Communication Decency Act (CDA). The CDA contained two provisions that were aimed at protecting minors from “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on the Internet. Several plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the CDA. In 1996, a special three-judge court panel unanimously declared the CDA unconstitutional (ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996)). They argued that the law was inherently vague because “indecent” was not defined in the law and it prohibited speech that was legal for adults. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the CDA was unconstitutional. This was the Supreme Court’s first decision on free speech in cyberspace.
The Supreme Court held that the CDA did indeed violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, they held that Internet speech was entitled to the highest degree of First Amendment protection. Due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU, it would be argued that Yoder’s MySpace blog does indeed enjoy First Amendment protection because speech found on the Internet is constitutionally protected. This is further compounded by the fact that political speech is constitutionally protected as long as it does not violate time, place and manner restrictions as annunciated in Hague v. CIO (1939), Schneider v. State (1939), Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) and Jamison v. Texas (1943). Yoder’s MySpace blog was created privately as a tool to release stress and it did not disrupt the education environment.
In United States v. Baker, 890 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995), a student at the University of Michigan posted a graphic narrative on a website which described the torture, rape and murder of a woman. In another story, the victim had the same name as one of the student’s classmates. A grand jury indicted the student for violating a statute that prohibited interstate communication of threats to injure or kidnap an individual. Baker’s attorney argued that the threats were not “true threats” and were therefore protected expression. Federal district judge Avern Cohn argued, “statements expressing musings, considerations of what it would be like to kidnap or injure someone, however unsavory, are not constitutionally actionable… absent some expression of an intent to commit the injury or kidnapping” (Tedford, 2005).
Based on the Baker decision, Yoder should be allowed to resume classes at the University of Louisville. The University of Louisville administration cited the gun-related postings as a reason for her dismissal. Yoder was merely expressing her opinions regarding gun-rights and posed no true threat to university administrators, teachers or students. Therefore, Yoder’s should be reinstated to the university’s nursing program.
Nina Yoder was a nursing student at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. On March 2, 2009 the school dismissed Yoder stating that she had violated the school’s honor code by “posting blog items concerning patients activities and naming the university on her MySpace page” (Associated Press, 2009). Yoder’s attorney, Daniel Canon, is arguing that the postings were mostly political and did not identify patients. The nursing student’s blog covered topics including suicide, religion, sex, guns and politics. “She mentioned the university several times but revealed no patient names in postings” (Associated, 2009). The University of Louisville told Yoder she could not continue in the nursing program because of her blog posts. As a result, the University labeled Yoda as a “persona non grata”, literally “an unwelcome person” and was immediately withdrawn from classes.
Yoder appealed to U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson on March 13, 2009. She asked the court to issue an injunction that would allow her to return to classes and graduate in August. A hearing has not yet been scheduled to hear Yoder’s motion. Yoder’s case mirrors a national trend among colleges and universities seeking to exercise some control over what students are able to do and say off campus and on the Internet. “Students at universities around the country, including high-profile cases in Georgia and Colorado, have faced disciplinary action for their online postings” (Associated, 2009).
Yoder’s attorney, Daniel Canon, argues that his client’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as granted by the First Amendment, has been violated by the University of Louisville. All nursing students at the University of Louisville sign an honor code that states, “[all students must adhere to] the highest standards of honesty, integrity, accountability, confidentiality, and professionalism” (Associated, 2009). Though Yoder had signed this document, Canon argues, “Public institutions can’t restrict speech. [The honor code is] too vague and regardless of the code any attempts to limit student speech are unconstitutional” (Bullard, 2009). In addition, while Yoder was granted the right to appeal her dismissal, which was denied, she was offered no hearing to present evidence and witnesses in her defense.
In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 502 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the right of students to express their views in a quiet, symbolic manner that is non-disruptive to the educational process. Three high school students wore black armbands to school to protest American involvement in Vietnam. This act violated a recently adopted Des Moines, Iowa school district policy against such expression. As a result, the three students were suspended from school. The federal district court and the court of appeals found in favor of the school district. The lower court decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. In the majority opinion written by Justice Fortas states, “conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason—whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech” (Tedford and Herbeck, 2005).
According to the Tinker decision, Yoder should be allowed to return to school and graduate in August. Yoder’s MySpace blog posed no disruptions to the classroom environment. In addition, the blog posts were a form of political expression conducted in a non-disruptive manner according to time, place, and manner restrictions and should therefore be protected by the First Amendment.
Lacking many traditional barriers, the Internet has rapidly become a medium for a wide range of expression. Unlike traditional media outlets, the Internet has no gatekeepers. Because of this, it has become a forum for political speech and individual expression. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress included a provision known as the Communication Decency Act (CDA). The CDA contained two provisions that were aimed at protecting minors from “indecent” and “patently offensive” communications on the Internet. Several plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the CDA. In 1996, a special three-judge court panel unanimously declared the CDA unconstitutional (ACLU v. Reno, 929 F.Supp. 824 (E.D. Pa. 1996)). They argued that the law was inherently vague because “indecent” was not defined in the law and it prohibited speech that was legal for adults. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the CDA was unconstitutional. This was the Supreme Court’s first decision on free speech in cyberspace.
The Supreme Court held that the CDA did indeed violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, they held that Internet speech was entitled to the highest degree of First Amendment protection. Due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU, it would be argued that Yoder’s MySpace blog does indeed enjoy First Amendment protection because speech found on the Internet is constitutionally protected. This is further compounded by the fact that political speech is constitutionally protected as long as it does not violate time, place and manner restrictions as annunciated in Hague v. CIO (1939), Schneider v. State (1939), Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) and Jamison v. Texas (1943). Yoder’s MySpace blog was created privately as a tool to release stress and it did not disrupt the education environment.
In United States v. Baker, 890 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995), a student at the University of Michigan posted a graphic narrative on a website which described the torture, rape and murder of a woman. In another story, the victim had the same name as one of the student’s classmates. A grand jury indicted the student for violating a statute that prohibited interstate communication of threats to injure or kidnap an individual. Baker’s attorney argued that the threats were not “true threats” and were therefore protected expression. Federal district judge Avern Cohn argued, “statements expressing musings, considerations of what it would be like to kidnap or injure someone, however unsavory, are not constitutionally actionable… absent some expression of an intent to commit the injury or kidnapping” (Tedford, 2005).
Based on the Baker decision, Yoder should be allowed to resume classes at the University of Louisville. The University of Louisville administration cited the gun-related postings as a reason for her dismissal. Yoder was merely expressing her opinions regarding gun-rights and posed no true threat to university administrators, teachers or students. Therefore, Yoder’s should be reinstated to the university’s nursing program.
Beat Articles
"ASWSU Senate passes tuition cap proposal"
By Staff Reports
The Daily Evergreen
"WSU halts incoming freshman applications"
By Andy Jones
The Daily Evergreen
By Staff Reports
The Daily Evergreen
"WSU halts incoming freshman applications"
By Andy Jones
The Daily Evergreen
Public Request Record Denial
Dear Ms. Sanford:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Public Records Request 09-095 received on March 30, 2009, and respond to your request. You are seeking the following records:
1. Budget scenarios provided to the Budget Committee at the end of January; 2. Budget proposals from the College of Communications, College of Liberal Arts, College of Business, Office of the Provost, Office of the President, and University Relations; and 3. Any reports documenting trends or summaries in regards to the above proposals.
Your request must be denied. We are withholding the records you requested from production in accordance with RCW 42.56.280, which provides that preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, etc. are exempt from disclosure until publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action.
This concludes the University's response to your request for public records.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Nelson at 509-335-3928.
Very truly,
Linda Nelson for
Ralph Jenks
Public Records Officer
Linda Nelson
Public Records Coordinator
Office of Procedures, Records, and Forms
P.O. Box 641225
Pullman, WA 99164-1225
509 335 3928
FAX 509 335 3969
nelsonl@wsu.edu
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Public Records Request 09-095 received on March 30, 2009, and respond to your request. You are seeking the following records:
1. Budget scenarios provided to the Budget Committee at the end of January; 2. Budget proposals from the College of Communications, College of Liberal Arts, College of Business, Office of the Provost, Office of the President, and University Relations; and 3. Any reports documenting trends or summaries in regards to the above proposals.
Your request must be denied. We are withholding the records you requested from production in accordance with RCW 42.56.280, which provides that preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended, etc. are exempt from disclosure until publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action.
This concludes the University's response to your request for public records.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Nelson at 509-335-3928.
Very truly,
Linda Nelson for
Ralph Jenks
Public Records Officer
Linda Nelson
Public Records Coordinator
Office of Procedures, Records, and Forms
P.O. Box 641225
Pullman, WA 99164-1225
509 335 3928
FAX 509 335 3969
nelsonl@wsu.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)