Monday, January 24, 2011
Scholarships for graduating high-school seniors
Please remind high-school journalism advisers in your area about NINA's annual scholarship competition for graduating seniors. We have a mailing going out this week, but application materials are available online now at http://www.ninaonline.org/.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Smartpen for reporters
I've talked with a couple of writers who use these and they swear by them.
A Wired.com reviewer writes:
"And for college students and journalists in particular, the Pencast option is quite simply a Godsend. Simply hit the record icon on the included paper and start taking notes as you usually would. Once you’ve finished the lecture/meeting/interview, you can not only replay the entire recording, but also instantly move from one section to another by simply tapping on a specific note. The pen will automatically play back the audio from that precise moment. This has the obvious benefit of helping you navigate long, meandering lectures, but it also frees you up to write random or tangential thoughts without the fear of missing important information."
Take a look at the available apps, too, including dictionaries and translators. Here's the video on the company's site.
The pen comes in 4 GB and 8 GB capacities, and lists on Amazon for between $157 and $174. Best Buy, Target and a few other stories also sell them. The notebooks come in various sizes. Basically, a four-pack of 100-sheet, spiral notebooks runs about $20.
If you've used one of these for journalism, let us know what you think of it. Is it worth the price?
Monday, January 3, 2011
Another loss for Illinois citizens
Legislature fails to protect transparency and the rights of taxpayers
By Jay Dickerson
Galena Gazette
Like knowing your tax dollars are being spent wisely? You’re in the wrong state.
Performance evaluations of all public employees in Illinois are now exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after both the House and the Senate voted to override Gov. Quinn’s amendatory veto of House Bill 5154. Quinn’s amendatory veto narrowed the exemption to law enforcement personnel.
The Senate voted Dec. 1 to override the governor’s veto, making all evaluations of public employees exempt. The House also voted in favor of the override, on Nov. 16.
The Illinois Press Association still believes that the evaluations of all public employees whose salaries are funded entirely by taxpayer dollars should be accessible to the public. Before the override veto, the FOIA stated, “The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.”
“The law couldn’t be any clearer,” said Josh Sharp, director of government relations for the IPA. “Nothing bears more clearly on the public duties of public employees than their performance.”
In arguing that all evaluations of public employees should be kept from the light of public scrutiny, the Illinois Municipal League wrote: “Performance reviews are simply not documents that are designed to be distributed to a broad audience … these reviews are rife with personal and private information that could be harmful to individuals if disclosed.”
The Illinois Municipal League also wrote that the Freedom of Information Act “reduces the use of performance evaluations as a tool for the efficient management of communities. Communities need the ability to communicate honestly and openly with their employees concerning job performance. This need outweighs the need for the public to review routine employment matters.”
I disagree. So should you.
I believe that government should be transparent. And so should you.
Claiming something is a personnel issue gives far too wide of an exemption that may be misused. You don’t need to look any further than Jo Daviess County for an example.
In Jo Daviess County, several years ago, there was an issue with a county employee in an administrative position. At the time, a number of county employees who worked underneath this administrator shared their concerns with the Gazette. They alleged this administrator was misusing his position, and making it difficult for other employees to serve the public. He was fostering an environment of distrust. People were concerned about their continued employment.
After learning of the troubles with this employee, the county board did act. The county board gave the administrator a list of goals to accomplish, and ways to improve. When The Gazette tried to receive the goals through the Freedom of Information Act, the Gazette was denied: the Gazette was told the list of goals was personnel-related, and therefore, exempt to public scrutiny.
A list of goals for a public servant to accomplish, but the public is not allowed to know what those goals are? It doesn’t seem right. Taxpayers should be offended that goal-setting is considered a personnel issue.
This was more than just a “routine employment matter,” as the Illinois Municipal League might argue. This was about openness, and transparency. This was about a public servant misusing his position.
Only weeks later, this individual was fired by the county board, but not before each county department head spoke to the county board in a closed session. The Gazette also learned that this administrator had a history difficulties at his previous job in Wisconsin as well, culminating in a physical altercation with an alderman. And Wisconsin does not have the same personnel exemption that Illinois does.
Incidentally, a physical altercation with an alderman also should not be exempt from public scrutiny.
I believe taxpayers have the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. I believe you have the right to know how people paid with those same tax dollars are doing their job–at the very least, if they are meeting their goals.
We live in a state of entitlement, where some public servants feel their actions are above public scrutiny.
We live in a state that has seen four governors in the past 35 years see prison time.
We live in a state where we need transparency, now more than ever.
We don’t need another level of secrecy.
The public needs to know that an employee paid with tax dollars is doing his or her job effectively. This override took away that right from every taxpayer in the state.
By Jay Dickerson
Galena Gazette
Like knowing your tax dollars are being spent wisely? You’re in the wrong state.
Performance evaluations of all public employees in Illinois are now exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after both the House and the Senate voted to override Gov. Quinn’s amendatory veto of House Bill 5154. Quinn’s amendatory veto narrowed the exemption to law enforcement personnel.
The Senate voted Dec. 1 to override the governor’s veto, making all evaluations of public employees exempt. The House also voted in favor of the override, on Nov. 16.
The Illinois Press Association still believes that the evaluations of all public employees whose salaries are funded entirely by taxpayer dollars should be accessible to the public. Before the override veto, the FOIA stated, “The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.”
“The law couldn’t be any clearer,” said Josh Sharp, director of government relations for the IPA. “Nothing bears more clearly on the public duties of public employees than their performance.”
In arguing that all evaluations of public employees should be kept from the light of public scrutiny, the Illinois Municipal League wrote: “Performance reviews are simply not documents that are designed to be distributed to a broad audience … these reviews are rife with personal and private information that could be harmful to individuals if disclosed.”
The Illinois Municipal League also wrote that the Freedom of Information Act “reduces the use of performance evaluations as a tool for the efficient management of communities. Communities need the ability to communicate honestly and openly with their employees concerning job performance. This need outweighs the need for the public to review routine employment matters.”
I disagree. So should you.
I believe that government should be transparent. And so should you.
Claiming something is a personnel issue gives far too wide of an exemption that may be misused. You don’t need to look any further than Jo Daviess County for an example.
In Jo Daviess County, several years ago, there was an issue with a county employee in an administrative position. At the time, a number of county employees who worked underneath this administrator shared their concerns with the Gazette. They alleged this administrator was misusing his position, and making it difficult for other employees to serve the public. He was fostering an environment of distrust. People were concerned about their continued employment.
After learning of the troubles with this employee, the county board did act. The county board gave the administrator a list of goals to accomplish, and ways to improve. When The Gazette tried to receive the goals through the Freedom of Information Act, the Gazette was denied: the Gazette was told the list of goals was personnel-related, and therefore, exempt to public scrutiny.
A list of goals for a public servant to accomplish, but the public is not allowed to know what those goals are? It doesn’t seem right. Taxpayers should be offended that goal-setting is considered a personnel issue.
This was more than just a “routine employment matter,” as the Illinois Municipal League might argue. This was about openness, and transparency. This was about a public servant misusing his position.
Only weeks later, this individual was fired by the county board, but not before each county department head spoke to the county board in a closed session. The Gazette also learned that this administrator had a history difficulties at his previous job in Wisconsin as well, culminating in a physical altercation with an alderman. And Wisconsin does not have the same personnel exemption that Illinois does.
Incidentally, a physical altercation with an alderman also should not be exempt from public scrutiny.
I believe taxpayers have the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. I believe you have the right to know how people paid with those same tax dollars are doing their job–at the very least, if they are meeting their goals.
We live in a state of entitlement, where some public servants feel their actions are above public scrutiny.
We live in a state that has seen four governors in the past 35 years see prison time.
We live in a state where we need transparency, now more than ever.
We don’t need another level of secrecy.
The public needs to know that an employee paid with tax dollars is doing his or her job effectively. This override took away that right from every taxpayer in the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
