Florida Commission on Open Government Reform
Sarasota public hearing
Testimony of Mike Connelly
Executive Editor of the Herald-Tribune, Sarasota, Fla.
February 12, 2008

My name is Mike Connelly. I am executive editor of the Herald-Tribune, the 24-hour local news station SNN News 6 and HeraldTribune.com. We serve Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte counties. I am also a member of the boards of the Florida First Amendment Foundation and the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors.

Welcome to Sarasota. I am delighted you are holding a hearing here and deeply appreciate the work you are doing.

I want to talk with you today about one aspect of open government – access to data. For several years, the Herald-Tribune has been on the front lines of seeking access to public data. It hasn’t been easy.

Every year, privacy advocates argue more loudly for access restrictions that seem so reasonable that only a philosophical commitment to open government stands in the way. But scratch beneath the surface, even in the areas where restricting access seems most compelling, and you find serious dangers to the interests of Florida citizens, who have been well- served by Florida’s long and strong commitment to open government.

Let me tell you a story that goes to the heart of one of the thorniest issues on data access. The Herald-Tribune caused a stir four years ago when the newspaper sought a database that included the Social Security numbers of Florida school teachers. On the surface, it is hard to imagine why a newspaper would want teachers’ Social Security numbers. And because the Department of Education sent an e-mail to every Florida school teacher asking that they e-mail me, I heard from hundreds of Florida teachers, some of them using decidedly un-schoolmarmish language, who couldn’t understand why the newspaper wanted their Social Security numbers.

We were working on a story that everyone would agree is in the public interest: whether kids from poor families receive the same quality of education as kids from affluent families. As part of our reporting, two Herald-Tribune reporters sought state data that would help answer two questions: Is the level of teacher training associated with student success? And do schools in poor neighborhoods get their share of the best-trained teachers?

So why did we need teachers’ Social Security numbers to chase this story?

Linking databases is like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle. To link a database on where teachers work, for example, with a database on their certificate test scores, the databases must have at least one common piece of identifying information. Names don’t work. The Sarasota phone book alone lists 17 James or Jim Smiths.

So almost every business, organization and agency gives its patrons a unique number – an account number, a customer number, an ID number.

The Florida Department of Education uses Social Security numbers.

The Herald-Tribune had three choices. Ask the state to link the databases so we wouldn’t need the Social Security numbers. We asked. The state refused.

Let me say that again: We asked. The state refused. If the Department of Education had been willing to spend just a few hours helping us uncover the facts, the Herald-Tribune would never have needed access to Social Security numbers.

The second choice we had: Ask for a data dump that included Social Security numbers so we could link the databases ourselves.

Or, third choice: Kill the story.

As teachers complained about our request, the Florida Legislature hastily passed a law limiting access to only the last four digits of teachers’ Social Security numbers. At first glance, again, that seems like a reasonable way to balance privacy interests and the public interest. But let’s use this story as an example and look at what happens: The Department of Education database lists 370,000 staff members in the state. To test the effects of this law, a Herald-Tribune reporter randomly selected 64,000 names and separated out the last four digits of the Social Security numbers.

If we are only given the four digits 5299, for example, we don’t know if we are reviewing data for Roland from Citrus County, Angela from Broward County, Maureen from Palm Beach County or Stefanie from Broward County. The reporter randomly picked nine other four-digit numbers and, on average, they produced 7.6 different names. And remember – that’s using only one-fifth of the entire staff database.

Privacy advocates want us to believe that no reasonable person could argue against protecting information such as Social Security numbers, and that only identity thieves and evil data mining companies want that kind of information. The reality is very different. Most attempts to restrict access to public information hurt the public interest.

The way state and local governments currently limit access to data keeps thousands of news stories – stories that shine a light on how our government works, stories that protect the least powerful citizens of our state, stories that help maintain a fair and just society – from seeing the light of day.

With me today are five of my colleagues from the Herald-Tribune, each of whom will explore a different issue related to access to government data. The issues we will discuss:

Unique identifiers. Social Security numbers have become the standby unique identifier in many government databases. That almost guarantees that data will remain secret. There is a simple solution: require that government entities replace Social Security numbers with another unique identifier free of charge or for a small fee.

Proprietary software. Local governments (and, to some degree, state agencies) increasingly outsource the creation and maintenance of data. In case after case, they have entered into contracts that restrict them from giving the data layout – and in some cases the raw data itself – to citizens who request it.

Bad data design. Although state law says agencies must make it easy to identify and redact non- public information, time and again agencies are building database systems that do not take this into account.

Cost. Increasingly, government officials try to charge large fees to provide electronic records. They contract the work and try to pass along consultants’ $100-an-hour fees. Or they charge for extensive programming time because they do not want to give raw data or did not plan an easy way to remove the portions of the data that are not public record.

Enforcement. Even when current law clearly requires government agencies to turn over data, officials and attorneys often delay, look for reasons to refuse requests or even effectively ignore requests. A stronger system for resolving disputes is needed.

Finally, a quick word about the Herald-Tribune reporters and editors who will discuss each of these issues. All of them have extensive experience using data in their reporting, and all have extensive experience seeking data from the state of Florida and from local governments in Florida. Pepper them with as many questions as you like. They can take as good as they give.

And of course, as you dig into these issues during the next few months, we are eager to answer any questions or provide any additional information or help.

Thank you again for the work you are doing, and thank you for coming to Sarasota.

Testimony before Commission on Open Government Reform in Sarasota