Over the years, the power of state

Over the years, the power of state and local government officials to deny access to records had been whittled down by legislation and court decisions, generating a patchwork of law and regulation that few reporters could master. All too frequently, a reporter found that he or she had no clear-cut right to certain information. On the federal level, Congress made an attempt to liberalize rules of access to federal records in 1946. The Administrative Procedure Act of that year said that matters of official record should be made available to the public, but added that an agency could restrict access to its documents "for good cause found" or "in the public interest." The need-to-know doctrine still lived.
How did this need-to-know principle work in practice? A government official would make a judgment -- yes or no -- on whether someone requesting a particular document or report needed to know what was in it by virtue of his or her position, or job, or what he or she intended to do with the information. And there was no appeal from some official's denial of access to the records.
As a practical matter, this put a reporter -- or a citizen -- at the mercy of some officious clerk. Here is an example from my own experience. In the early 1970s, I was working as a free-lance writer in the northeastern U.S. state of Massachusetts, trying to put together a story on the costs of running state-supported colleges, whose campuses are scattered throughout the state. I had a hunch that some colleges were receiving a disproportionate share of the budget at the expense of other schools -- a theory that, if true, would have made a good story. I wanted to compare each college's expenditures to determine if any campus was favored.
I appeared at the one place that had these figures in a central file -- the state board of higher education in Boston. "I'd like to see the college budgets for last year," I politely said to each of the several people I was shunted to. Invariably I was asked two questions: "Whom do you represent?" and "Why do you want this information?"

Результаты (английский) 1:

Over the years, the power of state and local government officials to deny access to records had been whittled down by legislation and court decisions, generating a patchwork of law and regulation that few reporters could master. All too frequently, a reporter found that he or she had no clear-cut right to certain information. On the federal level, Congress made an attempt to liberalize rules of access to federal records in 1946. The Administrative Procedure Act of that year said that matters of official record should be made available to the public, but added that an agency could restrict access to its documents "for good cause" or "found" in the public interest. " The need-to-know "doctrine still lived.How did this need-to-know principle work in practice? A government official would make a judgment-yes or no-on whether someone hand a particular document or report needed to know what was in it by virtue of his or her position, or job, or what he or she intended to do with the information. And there was no appeal from some official's denial of access to the records.As a practical matter, this put a reporter-or a citizen-at the mercy of some officious clerk. Here is an example from my own experience. In the early 1970s, I was working as a free lance writer in the northeastern U.S. state of Massachusetts, trying to put together a story on the running costs of state-supported colleges, whose campuses are scattered throughout the state. I had a hunch that some colleges were receiving a disproportionate share of the budget at the expense of other schools-a theory that, if true, would have made a good story. I wanted to compare each college's expenditures decided by to determine if any campus was favored.I appeared at the one place that had these figures in a central file-the state board of higher education in Boston. "I'd like to see the college budgets for the last year," I politely said to each of the several people I was shunted to. Invariably I was asked two questions: "Whom do you represent?" and "Why do you want this information?"

Результаты (английский) 2:

Over the years, the power of state and local government officials to deny access to records had been whittled down by legislation and court decisions, generating a patchwork of law and regulation that few reporters could master. All too frequently, a reporter found that he or she had no clear-cut right to certain information. On the federal level, Congress made an attempt to liberalize rules of access to federal records in 1946. The Administrative Procedure Act of that year said that matters of official record should be made available to the public, but added that an agency could restrict access to its documents "for good cause found" or "in the public interest." The need-to-know doctrine still lived.
How did this need-to-know principle work in practice? A government official would make a judgment - yes or no - on whether someone requesting a particular document or report needed to know what was in it by virtue of his or her position, or job, or what he or she intended to do with the information. And there was no appeal from some official 's denial of access to the records.
As a practical matter, this put a reporter - or a citizen - at the mercy of some officious clerk. Here is an example from my own experience . In the early 1970s, I was working as a free-lance writer in the northeastern US state of Massachusetts, trying to put together a story on the costs of running state-supported colleges, whose campuses are scattered throughout the state. I had a hunch that some colleges were receiving a disproportionate share of the budget at the expense of other schools - a theory that, if true, would have made a good story. I wanted to compare each college's expenditures to determine if any campus was favored.
I appeared at the one place that had these figures in a central file - the state board of higher education in Boston. "I'd like to see the college budgets for last year," I politely said to each of the several people I was shunted to. Invariably I was asked two questions: " Whom do you represent?" and "Why do you want this information ?" I appeared at the one place that had these figures in a central file - the state board of higher education in Boston. "I'd like to see the college budgets for last year," I politely said to each of the several people I was shunted to. Invariably I was asked two questions: " Whom do you represent?" and "Why do you want this information ?" I appeared at the one place that had these figures in a central file - the state board of higher education in Boston. "I'd like to see the college budgets for last year," I politely said to each of the several people I was shunted to. Invariably I was asked two questions: " Whom do you represent?" and "Why do you want this information ?"

Результаты (английский) 3:

over the years, the power of state and local government officials to deny access to records had been whittled down by legislation and court decisions, generating a patchwork of law and regulation that few reporters could master. all too frequently, a reporter found that he or she had no clear - cut right to certain information. on the federal level, congress made an attempt to liberalize rules of access to federal records in 1946. the administrative procedure act of that year. matters of official record should be made available to the public, but added that an agency could restrict access to its documents "for good cause found" or "in the public interest." the need - to - know doctrine still lived.how did the need to know principle work in practice? a government official would make a judgment - - yes or no - - on whether someone requesting a particular document or report needed to know what was in it by virtue of his or her position, or job, or what he or she intended to do with the information. and there was no appeal from some official 's condition of access to the records.as a practical matter, this put a reporter - - or a citizen is at the mercy of some officious clerk. here is an example from my own experience. in the first condition, i was working as a free - lance northeastern writer in the u.s. state of massachusetts, trying to put together a story on the costs of running the state supported colleges and campuses are scattered throughout the state. i had a hunch that some colleges were receiving a disproportionate share of the budget at the expense of other schools - a theory that, if true, would have made a good story. i wanted to compare each college's expenditures to determine if any entry is favored.i saw at the one place that had these figures in a central file, the state board of higher education in boston. " i 'd like to see the college budgets for last year, "i politely said to each of the several people i was shunted to. Invariably i was asked two questions: "whom do you represent?" and "why do you want this?"