Generally no, I do not see how a balance between privacy/transparency could be achieved by extending open record laws to cover personal email. Despite my inherent lack of trust in the system, I do realize politicians must have some level of privacy.

I do, however, think there are exceptions to this rule: For instance, if you were suspected of wrongdoing (such as having public business diverted to a private account for the purpose of skirting open records/meetings law) then a formal complaint should be filed and investigated - with emails reviewed by an unbiased third party.

Another exemption would be (and applies to this particular case) Defreese brought the constituent emails into public discussion: she acted citing the emails as incentive, encouragement or influence - so as far as I am concerned, regardless of where those emails were sent, by referencing them in the course of her duties as commissioner, she made them fair game.

Of course, I don’t think Ragsdale needs this correspondence and tend to lean toward the idea he’s an ass for requesting it- but an official ruling wouldn’t apply to just this one case. It would be used to support other instances of withholding public record.

And, I do believe regarding email as off-limits readies the political stage for scenes of corruption.

It does seem that it is not settled, but I see that the Attorney General does exempt “correspondence with a committee or member of the General Assembly or information supplied to a committee or a member of the General Assembly by an individual who requests confidentiality”.

That would seem to mean that those constituents who know about this opinion letter could write ‘confidential’ on their emails or letters, and that would restrict disclosability. Or so it seems, it later explain that they have the authority to withhold from the public record, not that they are required to do so.

There is also this: “Depending on its content or other circumstances, an e-mail could also be confidential under some other provision of Tennessee statute or an applicable common
law privilege.” I guess that is just a generic statement that means “plus anything I haven’t thought of”, though he does mention “Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504″ which I couldn’t find directly, but I found references to and it says that unlisted telephone numbers, bank account info, SSNs, DL info, TBI investigative records, medical records of patients in public hospitals, and probably a bunch of other things are confidential.

(Hm, while searching I just ran into the AG’s Opinion No. 08-77 on that handgun confidentiality thing you mentioned the other day.)

Ah well. I guess I will get over to the office store and get one of those big red stamps that says ‘confidential’. Hee hee.

Most states have exemptions for issues related to discrimination and sexual harassment - Ol’ Joe might fall in this category. I don’t disagree that there are many shades of gray, which are going to be hard to address: nevertheless, exempting all email is dangerous ground.

Now, TN-wise, the only official document addressing the issue of email (to the best of my knowledge) is from back in 2005. http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2005/OP/OP99.pdf

Personally, I don’t consider this much of an opinion but more of a convoluted statement, which means - “Hell if we know, guess it could go either way.” Therefore, it’ll be interesting to see which direction the AG’s ruling on the Defreese mess will go: forward or backwards.

Quickly before our bedtime story: copyright infringement: technically anything you write is copy protected - however, I presume you would not register your letter as a literary work: so this decreases the odds of a successful challenge right off the bat. Add to this reasonable expectation, question of whether sending a letter qualifies as a transfer of rights/ownership and add the fair use doctrine (particularly as it applies to criticism, news reporting, and edu uses) I’d say you’d stand to lose a whole lotta money whilst you get your hiney kicked in court.

And that’s just my opinion, you know, not a legal one.

I do not agree you have substantiated your various legal opinions:

* that Tennessee has the same legal perspective as Washington, Virginia, Texas, and Ohio
* that constituent letters necessarily ‘concern government business’ in the same sense as the cases you are citing (would be helpful if you could mention them). Contractors refurbishing the state capital - yes that is government business.
* that copyright law is irrelevant

Council members communicating with each other is a different issue, a red herring. Correspondence BY public officials in their official capacity should be a public record. Government officials mailing to discuss government business is of course government business.

What you are proposing here is undemocratic even if 4 other states do it. It has a chilling effect on democracy and free speech. Private constituent letters should be protected and private, as if they are under attorney/client privilege - which our relationship with our lawmakers approaches. And also, as our votes, which are our private political opinions expressed, are private and not publicized.

It’s 1950. Joe Smith is thinking of writing his representative to say that he supports desegregation and equal rights in Tennessee. Joe’s neighbors are KKK members. Joe has just been told that his letter to his representative is a public record that may be published and can be read by his neighbors. Joe doesn’t send the letter. Joe’s representative later “I can honestly say that not a single constituent has contacted me to support desegregation.”

Is this what we want?

Some states do offer more leeway by finding communication from a constituent that clearly implies by its nature or content that the constituent expects that it is confidential may be exempted - or depending upon content: does it contain facts or request a specific action? However, since these communications must be examined for purposes of classification: they aren’t truly private either.

And no, you are NOT a public official; however, your correspondence with a public official regarding public matters may likely fall outside the realm of personal and private. communication.

If you’re talking about the BBQ next week and how you hope SB#xxxx because that Senator who introduced it is a Schmuck - this might be personal. If you’re talking about SB#xxx, why it is workable/unworkable, how it will affect you and you urge this person to vote for/against said bill being presented - public. Anything less would lead to scores of representatives from special interest groups, etc. having “personal and private” communications with lawmakers.

So, if we consider this argument has been made and settled in regards to ink and paper: your argument against email as public record would require reinventing the wheel.

And copyright infringement? This argument would not likely fly for any number of reasons.

I’ve submitted comments on bills during the public commenting period, and my comments were published. I expected that because that is the purpose of the public commenting period.

I have also written privately to my representatives about various issues. They have not published my letters, and if they did do so, I would consider it to be not just a violation of my privacy, but copyright infringement as well. I would also consider it a violation of privacy if they taped my phone calls and personal face to face discussions with them and posted them on web sites, claiming it to be a public record.

I am NOT a public official myself, therefore my personal private correspondence is NOT a public record.