Kristen Stocking is unhappy that the Wake County school system left in her personal information on the copy of the check it released to the public.
The Carolina Journal reported Friday that Stocking, the founder of the Wake Schools Community Alliance, is complaining that Wake didn't redact the bank account and routing number from her check. She had written the $300 check to pay for part of the cost of the reception for new school board members.
I didn't post the page with Stocking's check when I blogged earlier in the week about the WSCA leaders only paying $300 of the $693.88 cost of the reception.
The school system had released the bill for the reception, including Stocking's check, following a public records request from Tim Simmons, vice president of the Wake Education Partnership.
There's no love lost between the Wake Education Partnership and the WSCA. Joe Ciulla, a leader of the WSCA, had filed an election complaint against the partnership. The state Board of Elections dimissed the complaint because it focused on the WEP's non-profit status under federal law.
In the Carolina Journal article, Michael Evans, Wake's chief communications officer, said the information was left in because he couldn’t find any reference in the state’s general statutes to protecting the type of financial information on the check once it’s in possession of the government.
“I would be hard-pressed to look a lawyer in the face and say we redacted the info when it wasn’t mandated by state law,” Evans said in the article.
The article raises the issue of Stocking's information potentially being used for identify theft.
Comments
what is Kristen Stocking's
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 13:10 — carson79what is Kristen Stocking's blog name? I have been told twice that all of the WSCA leaders are on the blog and not anonymous, is that true?
It appears it may be
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 14:26 — shank56It appears it may be petehs. See response below. In the last week, I've figured SDR is redpath. "Joe" is Curmudgeon.
Bob, Here is entire 14-113.20
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 14:04 — truthBtold§ 14‑113.20. Identity theft. (a) A person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit transactions in the other person's name, to obtain anything of value, benefit, or advantage, or for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences is guilty of a felony punishable as provided in G.S. 14‑113.22(a). (b) The term "identifying information" as used in this Article includes the following: (1) Social security or employer taxpayer identification numbers. (2) Drivers license, State identification card, or passport numbers. (3) Checking account numbers. (4) Savings account numbers. (5) Credit card numbers. (6) Debit card numbers. (7) Personal Identification (PIN) Code as defined in G.S. 14‑113.8(6). (8) Electronic identification numbers, electronic mail names or addresses, Internet account numbers, or Internet identification names. (9) Digital signatures. (10) Any other numbers or information that can be used to access a person's financial resources. (11) Biometric data. (12) Fingerprints. (13) Passwords. (14) Parent's legal surname prior to marriage. (c) It shall not be a violation under this Article for a person to do any of the following: (1) Lawfully obtain credit information in the course of a bona fide consumer or commercial transaction. (2) Lawfully exercise, in good faith, a security interest or a right of offset by a creditor or financial institution. (3) Lawfully comply, in good faith, with any warrant, court order, levy, garnishment, attachment, or other judicial or administrative order, decree, or directive, when any party is required to do so. (1999‑449, s. 1; 2000‑140, s. 37; 2002‑175, s. 4; 2005‑414, s. 6.) There doesn't appear to be anything having to do with " person who knowingly obtains, possesses, or uses identifying information of another person, living or dead, with the intent to fraudulently represent that the person is the other person for the purposes of making financial or credit transactions in the other person's name, to obtain anything of value, benefit, or advantage, or for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences is guilty of a felony punishable as provided in G.S. 14‑113.22(a)." That would allow (b) to be considered.
So...
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 14:45 — Bob_SconceSo... the public records law basically says "You know that big list in the identity theft statute? The one that says 'here's the information you can't use to commit fraud'? Well, all that information isn't subject to public records requests either. It's confidential and the government shouldn't release it."
The part that you're worried about is irrelevant.
No intent to defraud
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 14:37 — shank56As Paul Harvey would say , "Now we have the rest of the story." Or something like that.
So..
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 14:49 — Bob_SconceSee my response above. Nobody's claiming there was identity theft (which is where you need intent to commit fraud.) The question is whether that information is subject to a public records request, and it's not. It doesn't matter if the person asking for it wants to commit fraud or not. The district couldn't give it to the Pope, Barack Obama or even, I think, Stocking herself.
Argh...
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 23:56 — Bob_SconceWhat a crock. It took me all of about 20 seconds to find this:
N.C.G.S. 132-1.10(b):
. . . no agency of the State or its political subdivisions, or any agent or employee of a government agency shall . . .
(5) Intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the public a person's social security number or other identifying information. "Identifying information" as used in this section shall have the same meaning as in G.S. 14-113.20(b) . . . Identifying Information shall be confidential and not a public record under this chapter . . .'
GS 14-113.20(b) is part of the Identity Theft statute, which includes "Checking account numbers" as identifying information.
Evans screwed up, should admit it and apologize and the district should pay whatever costs Stocking incurs because of this screwup, plus something for her time. This whole "Well, gosh, I couldn't find it" excuse is asinine.
Plain old common sense would
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 00:48 — SouthEastWakeMomPlain old common sense would indicate that you don't release someone's personal checking account details. You would think that after the whole SSN fiasco, WCPSS employees would be sensitive of the issue.
Thank you, Bob. "In
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 00:31 — ApexterThank you, Bob.
"In the Carolina Journal article, Michael Evans, Wake's chief
communications officer, said the information was left in because he
couldn’t find any reference in the state’s general statutes to
protecting the type of financial information on the check once it’s in
possession of the government."
And why was HE the one searching the state statutes? The school system has Tharrington Smith under contract to answer such questions. Presumably they'd have done a more competent job with that question if anyone had asked.
Well...
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 08:43 — Bob_SconceSo, SEMom hit it on the head -- it should be obvious. The reason I went to the statutes was because I thought "there's no way Evans is right." Checking the statute is somebody anybody can do (Do a google search for "NC Statutes," then look for "Public Records") without a lawyer.
There's a backstory here. Why was Evans the one doing this? Does the Chief Communications Officer handle ALL public relations questions? Is it possible that the flow of information wasn't quite as described -- that Evans knew that bill wasn't paid completely, mentioned it to Simmons (who, being VP of WEP, probably has a good relationship with Evans), Simmons said "Wow. Can you get me the documents on that?" and then Evans just handed it over without even checking?
I just don't think that Simmons, all by his lonesome, said "Oh. I wonder if they actually did pay the entire thing" -- that's hardly a question WEP is concerned about.
Yes, Evans' office handles all of the public records requests
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 11:07 — petehsrelated to WCPSS. Mike said that he has recently started keeping a "log" of all requests and has four pages filled! Makes one wonder how many of those requests were in time-wasting attempts to satisfy a vendetta.
By the way, my comments to the Carolina Journal were less about concern regarding my personal information, and more about uncovering the motives behind WEP's request. This seems like a waste of resources, and certainly does not appear to be in line with WEP's stated mission.
Maybe I'll give Tim a call myself tomorrow...
Surely there is some expectation of privacy...
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 22:43 — raleighlauraDoes this mean I can request a copy of every check written by a parent to my elementary school's lunch room and get a copy of all of those routing numbers, addresses, and perhaps even driver's license numbers? That seems totally unreasonable. I think Ann Majestic should be asked to look into this and see if the system needs a new privacy/redacting policy.
In the meantime, I'm sending my kid to school with cash!
Why did they move the magnet
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 21:02 — red_balloonWhy did they move the magnet application period?
Ahahahahahaha. So the staff
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 19:54 — jamey81Ahahahahahaha. So the staff follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Just like the yokels who continue to add resolutions, no wait, policy changes, um, how does this gavel work?
Made me laugh!
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 19:57 — shank56Made me laugh!
...
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 17:51 — SideburnsSo, the obvious question is...
Why did Tim Simmons/WEP request this information? Are they chipping in too?
I was wondering the same thing
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 19:32 — TrailerParkGirlWhy does Tim Simmons/WEP care about an invoice for lemon bars and brownies? What does that have to do with their stated mission? Doesn't WEP realize that the school system has more important things to address than an information request like this? Also, how/why did this go to the media?
It keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.
Also, WCPSS thinks that personal checks written to it are "public information" that should not have account information redacted? No warm fuzzies there.
Also, WCPSS thinks that
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 19:55 — shank56Also, WCPSS thinks that personal checks written to it are "public information" that should not have account information redacted?
It appears they followed the law. If they erred no doubt we will hear about it.
WOW!
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 21:04 — JanisTangoI guess to you it's funny. I just hope you never have to deal with identify theft or someone draining your checking account fraudlently. I can't imagine it's fun at all.
hey, Mr. Hui???
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 14:23 — AngelaWhow about instead blogging/articles about what WCPSS will be doing in the next two weeks to "fix" the schools who were denied class size waivers and the absolute MESSES that will create in these schools half way through the year?
So...
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 00:02 — Bob_SconceOur year-round school is creating another 3rd grade class on track 3 and requesting volunteers from the other 3rd grade classes -- if they don't get enough volunteers (or the wrong *kind* of volunteers), then they'll switch students against their wills.
Doing that would invariably mean forcing kids to switch tracks in the middle of the school year. For those of you complaining about short notice on calendar changes for NEXT SCHOOL YEAR, how do you feel about changes being forced on students in FEBRUARY?
It's yet another reason why year-round schools are broken by design. At traditional schools, you can create new classes without messing with anybody's schedule.
oh, it's a mess....no
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:06 — AngelaWoh, it's a mess....no doubt...
Here it comes
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 16:16 — g88ky07we'll see how many are affected and how many still like it after they are, this should be REALLY interesting!
180 days
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 14:39 — PrivateSchoolDadWill kids switching tracks attend the required 180 days this year?
Is it legal if they don't?
and any parent worth their
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:03 — AngelaWand any parent worth their salt who has children affected by this in that way will pursue the answers to that.
Interesting question...
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 14:49 — Bob_SconceIn the case of my kid's school, it looks like the change doesn't decrease anybody's days. In fact, some kids will get an additional 15 days of school. (Because they are leaving a track which has not yet had its first track-out of 2010 and going to a track that has already had its first track-out.)
Where you really have to be careful is in kids switching into a lower-numbered track. If that happens, it's possible to go the other way -- from a track that's already had its first track-out to a track that hasn't had its first track-out.
Which brings up yet another problem: the students in the newly-formed class will be at different places in the curriculum.
Yet another example of why year-round school is broken.
Track switching time?
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 12:38 — g88ky07So are a bunch of folks about to get their tracks switched in mid-stream?
Potentially. Schools are
Sun, 01/17/2010 - 21:55 — KeungHui (author)Potentially. Schools are supposed to look for volunteers first but it won't be easy getting enough of them.
Why not change MYR to
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 14:13 — changewcpssWhy not change MYR to traditional now so everyone will be on the same schedule. No reason to wait for fall.
No, I think you're correct
Mon, 01/18/2010 - 10:31 — g88ky07I don't see too many parents wanting their child switched in mid-year, so I anticipate a BIG fall out over this and would also say I expect most of those who will be involved have no clue it's coming!
It's up there after juggling
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 14:27 — KeungHui (author)It's up there after juggling Tuesday's school board meeting and all that stems from that, Wedesday's joint meeting, the upcoming start of magnet application period, etc., etc. As I wait for work to be done on my car on my day off there's no requirement that I have to blog.
:)
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 14:34 — AngelaWok, ok I get it....there aren't enough hours in the day eh?
(kinda like juggling two school schedules (MYR and Trad) for three kids plus a full time job that barely matches any)
maybe you'll get dinner "paid for" (ha ha) @ the board meeting this time? bring your pillow and toothbrush at least....
Let me translate..
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 18:16 — supportwcpssfor you Angela...
What he meant was "Shut up fanatics and leave me the he!! alone".
;-)
yeah that's why he
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 18:56 — AngelaWyeah that's why he apologized...get a grip.
moving on......
Sorry if I came off as being
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 14:37 — KeungHui (author)Sorry if I came off as being rude. Work on the car, especially on the weekend, iis never fun. I do realize that the track and class reorganizations because of the waiver rejections are an issue. I have plans to follow up on them as I hear from more people who are being personallly affected.
There are questions about how LRES is
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 18:04 — midtownmomhandling the waiver issue with specialized small classes for higher level students. It would be great to find out more about how this is being handled. ...And thank you so much for all you do for our community.
not problem.....I do get
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 14:45 — AngelaWnot a problem.....I do get it.....
ok
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 17:07 — stacy123Ok a suggestion is one thing but let him have some peace and leave it at that.
uh what? think we got it
Sat, 01/16/2010 - 17:46 — AngelaWuh what? think we got it covered, thanks!