You can't fight Anderson Hall

But I did try to get clarification on the editing of police logs - why one can retrieve some complete electronic versions of the police log from more than a year ago by using the archive function of the file list, while police logs from 2006, for example, are not available in unedited versions. I asked this to Cheryl May at KSU.

Dear Mr. Karst,

I have investigated your recent inquiry related to two issues:

1) whether electronic versions of the police log for 2-15-06 to 2-30-06
are available;

and

2) why some information is blotted out on your copies.

After speaking with the university's attorneys, I have learned that the
electronic records you are seeking are not available to the public.

The police department's current e-mail versions of the police log are
edited, in the same way that the hard copy versions you received are
edited. These older files have not been edited and so have information
that would need to be deleted before they could be given to you.

Edited copies of the February 2006 logs are not available.

By providing hard copies, the university has complied with the Open
Records Act. The information which was redacted is not public
information.

I will make note in the file that you are displeased with the hard
copies and would prefer an electronic copy.

Cheryl May
Assistant Vice President for University Relations/
Director, Media Relations
Kansas State University


----------------------------------------------------------


I responded:


Cheryl,

Cheryl, can you tell me when this editing of the police log began? What types of information has been redacted from the police log, particularly?

I would like to appeal this interpretation. Who would be my contact for this appeal?

I question whether this editing is more than a convenient excuse to deny me access to the complete police log. For example, this listing is from (a recent police log), less than a month ago.

(ROOM NUMBER IS LISTED IN POLICE LOG) PUTNAM HALL

(NAME IS LISTED IN POLICE LOG) ADVISED SHE WAS AN ASSAULT VICTIM A FEW DAYS AGO. WHEN SHE ARRIVED AT HER DORM ROOM TONIGHT, SHE NOTICED A

DISTURBING NOTE ON HER DOOR. SHE TURNED IT INTO HER RESIDENT ADVISOR. DISPATCHED SGT. MILLINGTON TO SPEAK WITH HER.

04/17/08 21:31 21:33 21:33 21:33 OTHER ALARM P D08002589 031A

Cheryl, I ask you if any "editing" was done on that version of the police log, which was emailed to me and dozens of others. If I was Ms. (NAME OMITTED), I would not be happy in the least that this "edited" police log was released to the public. Please advise where I can appeal this interpretation.

Tom Karst





-----------------------

Finally...

Mr. Karst,

In response to your latest inquiries, we have provided you with all the
information we are permitted to give. There are no further steps within
the university for appeal.

Our policy regarding the Open Records Act is here:
http://www.k-state.edu/policies/ppm/3060.html

And fyi, K.S.A. 45-218(e) states: "The custodian may refuse to provide
access to a public record, or to permit inspection, if a request places
an unreasonable burden in producing public records or if the custodian
has reason to believe that repeated requests are intended to disrupt
other essential functions of the public agency."

Cheryl May
Assistant Vice President for University Relations/
Director, Media Relations
Kansas State University


---------------------------------------

TK: I hope the University has informed the individual listed in my example of the breach of privacy in the police log. Whether new editing rules are in place or not, it does not make sense to list the name of an assault victim in the police log. I find the University's rules on providing redacted police logs from the past self-serving and arbitrary - especially in view that current rules of editing police logs appears to be inconsistent.