Daily Record/Sunday News staffer Ted Czech reports in today's paper that although the state's new open records law (read it here) makes it possible for residents to get 911 time-response logs -- and thus assess the performance of their emergency responders -- York County's definition of a time-response log makes it impossible to do that.
The county decided it would not include addresses, or even geographical locations, in its time-response logs. (We've appealed the county's decision to the state's open records office.)
Czech's discovery of that fact, and the response to it, has prompted some fascinating reaction from county officials, others quoted in the story and people who have read his story:
1. A reader commented that perhaps the county won't release the addresses over concern for patient privacy, cites the Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act, and suggests we invest in a scanner if we want to know the addresses.
First, we have scanners (as do many others in York County). But you can't compile a database from listening to scanner calls that would allow you to assess response times over a particular geographic area, or during a particular time frame, etc. The county does, as part of its function, and residents have a right to that information.
The county decided it would not include addresses, or even geographical locations, in its time-response logs. (We've appealed the county's decision to the state's open records office.)
Czech's discovery of that fact, and the response to it, has prompted some fascinating reaction from county officials, others quoted in the story and people who have read his story:
1. A reader commented that perhaps the county won't release the addresses over concern for patient privacy, cites the Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act, and suggests we invest in a scanner if we want to know the addresses.
First, we have scanners (as do many others in York County). But you can't compile a database from listening to scanner calls that would allow you to assess response times over a particular geographic area, or during a particular time frame, etc. The county does, as part of its function, and residents have a right to that information.
Second: Note (as reader 'Chronic Iguana' did) that the county did not
cite privacy for withholding addresses. (In fact the county didn't cite
any reason at all for withholding them, and in Czech's story, 911
director Cindy Dietz more or less shrugged her shoulders when asked why
the county defines time-response logs this way.) Reader 'Yates' notes
that HIPPA doesn't apply to 911 calls. I don't know HIPPA to that
level, but thanks to Yates for that info. Anyone else want to weigh in
on HIPPA as it applies to 911 calls?
2. Yates also notes, "The idea is that government is supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people." Precisely -- and that is the point of the new open records law. The county may have a database with addresses that would allow it to audit the performance of emergency responders. But if the county is the only one who has that information, it could -- not saying it would -- but it could do an audit and announce everything is fine when in fact it isn't. You'd have no way to check up on it. The new law gives you that right.
3. Yates noted this, too, that 911 director Cindy Dietz said she didn't think the law was written to allow people "to search massive amounts of data and try to go through there and try to match that stuff up. Why would you be looking for something like that?"
The answer is, to audit the performance of emergency responders. Most residents have the right to that information but don't have the time to do such an audit. We sought the records because we can create the time needed to break down the records and see what's there.
4. We asked for addresses. But truthfully, a cross-street could serve the same purpose. That's where the county might have shown some flexibility -- the county could have said, for example, we're not comfortable giving out specific addresses, but we'll give you the nearest cross-street. That would at least allow someone to gauge how long it took a fire truck to get from point A to point B. And a spokesman for the legislator who led the push for the new law says that's what lawmakers envisioned when they agreed 911 time-response logs should be public.
Right now, you can look at the county's time-response logs and have no idea whether it took a unit five minutes to go two blocks or two miles.
5. Chronic Iguana suggest we flood the county with requests for every document possible, and they'll get the message and release info. Well, that's one strategy, for sure, and thanks for the idea. But we'd rather work with the county on something like this than request tons of documents we can't reasonably do anything with.
6. Lastly, note that the new right to know law says records are open unless specifically exempted; and that agencies do not have to withhold information that is exempted. They can decide to release information when it is in the public good. Who out there thinks it's a good idea that residents know how well their emergency responders are doing?
2. Yates also notes, "The idea is that government is supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people." Precisely -- and that is the point of the new open records law. The county may have a database with addresses that would allow it to audit the performance of emergency responders. But if the county is the only one who has that information, it could -- not saying it would -- but it could do an audit and announce everything is fine when in fact it isn't. You'd have no way to check up on it. The new law gives you that right.
3. Yates noted this, too, that 911 director Cindy Dietz said she didn't think the law was written to allow people "to search massive amounts of data and try to go through there and try to match that stuff up. Why would you be looking for something like that?"
The answer is, to audit the performance of emergency responders. Most residents have the right to that information but don't have the time to do such an audit. We sought the records because we can create the time needed to break down the records and see what's there.
4. We asked for addresses. But truthfully, a cross-street could serve the same purpose. That's where the county might have shown some flexibility -- the county could have said, for example, we're not comfortable giving out specific addresses, but we'll give you the nearest cross-street. That would at least allow someone to gauge how long it took a fire truck to get from point A to point B. And a spokesman for the legislator who led the push for the new law says that's what lawmakers envisioned when they agreed 911 time-response logs should be public.
Right now, you can look at the county's time-response logs and have no idea whether it took a unit five minutes to go two blocks or two miles.
5. Chronic Iguana suggest we flood the county with requests for every document possible, and they'll get the message and release info. Well, that's one strategy, for sure, and thanks for the idea. But we'd rather work with the county on something like this than request tons of documents we can't reasonably do anything with.
6. Lastly, note that the new right to know law says records are open unless specifically exempted; and that agencies do not have to withhold information that is exempted. They can decide to release information when it is in the public good. Who out there thinks it's a good idea that residents know how well their emergency responders are doing?
Leave a comment