Voices from the Flats – Transparency in Public Records
>>>>>>>SSSKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That’s the noise of my fingernails dragging across the ground. I’m trying to resist, and I don’t know if any of you noticed or not, but I have myself a little much needed hiatus from Sarah Palin. The Alaska Legislature is in session, and matters of tremendous urgency have been going on on a federal level, and major environmental issues are bubbling up to the surface, and frankly, I just haven’t been that into her.
Yes, I heard all about the custody thing, and the McCain thing, and the Facebook thing, and at some point it just all turned into background noise. The kind of background noise that sounds like a big cloud of Alaskan mosquitoes.
But, just as one cannot ignore a giant black cloud of Alaskan mosquitoes forever, so one cannot ignore the ex-almost-one-term-governor. She simply won’t allow it. And my fingernails are giving out. But, to ease me back into “solid food” after my Sarah-fast, is Linda Kellen Biegel. She’s here to talk about what’s going on with those infamous emails. And the email issue at this point is really much more about transparency in government, and what the rules of the road are going to be for future administrations, than it is about Palin. But the two are inextricably linked.
I like to think that if you’re going to try to find a rosy side of the Palin administration (or should we call that the Palin administr—) you can look at it like this. Have you ever had an energy audit done on your house? They’ve got this thing that you attach to an open door that helps you find leaks. It’s a big piece of plastic that fits over the doorway to the outside, and you open the door and turn on these giant sucking fans that blow from the inside to the outside. They go to work, and you can walk around and feel cold air rushing in all the places that need extra insulation or weather stripping. It’s really quite incredible. You think you’re living in a nice energy efficient box, and then the sucking starts and you can feel ice cold air streaming in through light switches, and wall outlets and around windows.
That was Sarah Palin. She was the giant sucking thing that showed us all the places we need to patch up government – all the places that need work. The idea is that we then actually FIX the holes. But that’s my perfect little world of accountability. In reality things don’t always work out like that. In reality, we say, “Wow! Come over here and feel this little stream of air coming through the edge of the window! Let’s throw a hammer through it!”
And with that, I give you Linda Kellen Biegel:
********************************************
Transparency in Public Records – The Legislature is Our Only Hope
The very same week we had a ruling that set back ethics 200 years coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Alaska Superior Court delivered a set-back to government transparency:
“JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) – An Alaska judge has sided with former Gov. Sarah Palin in a lawsuit over e-mail messages, finding that state law does not forbid the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business…
…The issue arose from a 2008 records request by Ms. McLeod that showed that Ms. Palin and members of her staff had been using private e-mail accounts. The traffic uncovered, though, was heavily redacted for what were deemed reasons of privacy. Ms. McLeod argued through her lawyer that use of private accounts obstructed the people’s right to inspect public records.”
(For those of you who have never seen a “redacted” public record, this is what one looks like:)
And Superior Court Judge McKay (yes, it’s the same one with 2 DUIs) was quite clear into whose lap he was dropping this:
[State Asst. Attny Gen.] Mr. Mitchell said last month that if the use of private accounts were to be banned for state business, the Legislature, not a court, should say so.
On Friday, Judge McKay agreed.“The language in our case is clear – the Legislature simply chose to give state agencies some discretion in determining which e-mails are worthy of preservation and which are not,” he wrote. A records retention plan through the state archives also makes distinctions, he noted, and classifies messages not required to be retained as “transitory” messages, meant mainly for informal communications.
This is a blow to government transparency in Alaska…a State that may be one of the most corrupt/most secretive in the U.S.
So from this, we can determine three things:
1) The judge not only allowed state employees to hide records from the public by using private accounts, he also may have expanded the definition of “non-record” emails sent on state accounts. As it stands now, the policy the State adopts regarding archived emails seems to interpret much more narrowly Alaska Statutes guidance on what are considered records. Per the State policy:
What is Non-record e-mail?
Non-record e-mail does not meet the definition of Record in AS 40.21.150(6) or AS 40.25.220(3). Non-record e-mail includes personal messages, spam, extra copies of documents distributed or received for reference, listserv or bulletin board posts, and announcements unrelated to official business, like retirement parties or holiday celebrations. Personal messages constitute non-records as they are not accounts or writings “developed or received by a public agency,” and are not “preserved for their informational value or as evidence of the organization or operation of the public agency” under AS 40.25.110
I suspect the ruling will give folks more confidence in disposing of records that they may have previously questioned.
(I also find it interesting that this clearly positive ruling towards Sarah Palin occurred days after an Alaska judge warranted a security detail because of threats stemming from the Palin v. Levi custody case. Just sayin’…)
2) The judge was clear that he believes Alaska Statutes allow State employees to police themselves, and;
3) The Judge made it clear that the Alaska Legislature is the only vehicle by which this practice can be changed permanently (Gov. Parnell has forbidden his employees from using private accounts to conduct State business…that will only last as long as he’s Governor)
In the legislature, Rep. Mike Doogan’s HB 195 addresses the issue of private v public emails directly:
* Section 1. AS 39.52 is amended by adding a new section to read:
04 Sec. 39.52.135. State electronic mail delivery systems required for official
05 action by electronic mail. (a) When taking or withholding official action, a public
06 officer may not send or cause another to send information by electronic transmission
07 within a system for electronic mail delivery unless the system is operated and
08 maintained by the state.
It is currently sitting in the State Affairs Committee.
However, there is still one more lawsuit out there…the ruling I’m breathlessly waiting for:
In essence, McLeod is arguing that if Todd Palin was copied on the state e-mails, the governor’s office can’t keep them from the public for reasons such as “executive privilege” and “deliberative process.”
Does being the husband of Gov. Sarah Palin give Todd Palin special access to internal communications off limits to the general public?
Andree McLeod, a former state worker turned activist, has gone to court arguing it does not. She is seeking an untold number of state e-mails that were copied to Todd Palin but withheld from a public records request she made in June.“This latest refusal by the governor’s office to hold back official state e-mails has left me no other choice,” McLeod said. “And this is real important: The state can’t cloak these communications in secrecy when the governor and her staff have broken the chain of custody by sharing them with a mere private citizen, who is not … a state employee. Therefore, that entitles all citizens the right to examine these documents in the light of day.”
As Attny Don Mitchell (McLeod’s attorney for the email lawsuits) reported in an article on Mudflats in November “The legislation is ongoing.”
I have a very good reason that I’m particularly interested in this second, yet-to-be-determined lawsuit. It’s one many of you will be interested in as well…the majority of the emails that “respond” to my email inquiry were redacted for “privilege.”
I admit that I expected a number of them to be redacted, but I NEVER expected this many…there are over 70!
They go from emails allegedly handling a “cleavage complaint”…something that was NEVER an official complaint but just an email to Annette Kreitzer used to try and discredit Andree McLeod…there should be no privilege attached (more news on this one later):
We have emails claiming privilege when they are discussing a “web column”–basically, the media and their coverage:
And then…my favorite…ones that claim “attorney-client privilege” when they are either missing an attorney, a client or both (between Linda Perez and Cheif of Staff Mike Nizich)! Also, some have people on the CC who are neither:
The reason this ruling is so important (and I believed we’d have it by now) is Alaska Law in the area of privilege is a little bi-polar.
–Fuller v. City of Homer which states in the court decision:
We have repeatedly held that the [Alaska Public Records] act creates a presumption in favor of disclosure and that the act’s implicit legislative policy of broad public access requires courts to narrowly construe exceptions to disclosure.10
–However, Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Office of the Governor states in its ruling that the “deliberative process” in the Governor’s Office should be protected, even when the decision was already made:
The privilege may protect any governmental decisionmaking function, including the governor’s policymaking and lobbying of either state or federal government.
Generally, it is difficult for a requestor to override a presumptive privilege. [Fn. 56]
For this reason, it’s unlikely that any attorney will take another case dealing with privilege until they see the outcome of the one Don Mitchell and Andree McLeod is pursuing now. This is true even though most people can look at this partial list of redacted emails and see the farce in claiming “privilege.”
One prediction I will make: I believe the unfortunate outcome of the first ruling may be that it effects the second–that the court defers to the Alaska Legislature.
>I have [given] myself a little much needed hiatus from Sarah Palin.
Noted.
Yikes! Linda and Andree deserve a medal for patiently, persistently staying on the trail of these emails, which indicate a big problem with transparency.
I notice that none of the subjects involve national security. On the contrary, when the emails are finally made public, I bet we see how unprofessionally childish and petty the previous administration was.
I am reminded of the excellent HBO series “Deadwood” in which the first town meeting of the frontier community is called to order by it’s most prosperous criminal citizen and the one other person in the community who might have enough money and prestige to counter him is not even informed of the meeting.
Good lordie… a few select state “employees” use taxpayer-funded services for their own personal use while on the taxpayer’s dime and… and the judge allows the lack of accountability?
I need to get some more coffee. …
The first ruling IS a joke. The second will tell us whether we have to gear up and demand legislation to ensure clear lines and rules for what constitutes policymaking etc.
At whatever level I accept that the executive branch needs to draw a veil across true policy discussions , because THAT is the distinction in the 2 court cases above, I do NOT accept that anything Todd Palin was privy to could be called policy-making in any meaningful manner. Nor anything which included E Burke, S Toomey or references to them…
SP and her gang shielded non government, non policy making garbage behind an important tool for the executive branch.
Want it not to happen again…
Demand it not happen again…
Aside from the basic public policy issues present when state employees utilize non-state means to conduct state business (cannot wait until some enterprising state employee utilizes a brothel to conduct state business), there is the lack of appropriate action by the state legislature in removing a judge who appears to have a drunk problem and who has clearly violated the oath of his office.
Then there is that pesky issue of attorney-client privilege which is present in both Linda’s and Andree’s situations.
I have never seen a court case wherein a judge allowed a communication to be deemed non-producible due to ACP when a 3rd party non-attorney, non-client is included in the communication. This is especially true for the non-attorney, non-state employee Todd Palin. To rule that he is protected from any disclosure by the ACP would turn that whole concept on its head. To allow that claim would be to go against the grain of court rulings in the 49 non-AK states and in the federal system for administrative, civil and criminal cases.
Perhaps both Andree and Linda ought to investigate whether these issues can appropriately to be expanded into the federal arena. What harm would there be in filing very similar requests pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act? AK’s government is very much run on the federal dime, isn’t it? Ah, yes… that pesky “funded by federal dollars” thing. Go for it, Andree. You, too, Linda. Don’t let the Emmeline Grangerford’s of AK slow you up.
And of course the decision goes beyond the Dud.
Firstly, can a government official make a secret decision as to who among the pubic they personally define as being not a memeber of the public, and to whom they disclose privileged government information, and not have to disclose that fact.
Aslo, if officers of the government elected, appointed or civil service empolyess or private contractors can include, say lobbiests, their private lawyers, their personal investment broakers, under privacy; then there is a lot of hanky panky that they can hide and keep hidden.
And the public trust system gets screwed again. Why is Palin always involved when things are always getting screwed up – but then again it wasn’t her fault was it? I mean the legs/rules process produced holes of which she exploited and could go right through, kind of like that door she is always talking about. Who cares if the public’s business is done on government email systems or private yahoo accounts? But then again she doesn’t have the brains or legal thought process to figure out how she could get around those pesky rules legally. I wonder if someone helped her find that end around or if she stumbled on it all by herself. She is just going to keep falling in s**t and come up smelling like a rose isn’t she?
Absolutely pathedic.
I mean this respectfully, but am I the only one who thinks that it should be fair for a person in a government position to confide in a spouse and have that be granted the same priveleges of confidentiality as other communications. Of course, the same rules should apply, but I have no problems defining immediate family as de facto advisors.
Bunch of bullcrap.
I admire Linda and Andree for continuing their pursuit to make government accountable. Here’s hoping that all of their hard work will eventually result in an outcome that will not allow politicians to do what THEY want instead of working for the people that elected them in the first place.
A personal irony in this story and with an announcement yesterday made by the native health corporation my husband works for; no employee is allowed to use the corporation’s computers to do personal emails, internet searches, etc. (no matter how much free time is on their hands) And anything that is done on thier computers, on “their” time, is considered their property and is open to scrutiny. Sounds fair.
So here we have a corporation completely separating their employees private stuff from their business; yet our State government is being allowed to do the exact opposite and is being sheltered from the scrutiny and question of their bosses, the public.
So how is it that this judge may expand the definition of non-record email, but cannot expand the AK statute to require all state business be conducted on state email systems? Selective activism?
When I am asked why I hold Sarah Palin to a higher standard than other political types I reply first, that of course I demand ethical behavior from ALL elected officials. HOWEVER, I find it grossly offensive that Palin, whose very platform sold us her bag of goods by claiming higher ethics, greater transparency, and generally “not the same old politics” began, continued, and ended her foray into public office with petty grifting and abusive practices.
NOBODY making the grand claims Palin made about herself should EVER have been caught using personal email to hide state’s business, or caught having her husband troll through personnel records or caught CHARGING THE TAXPAYERS PER DIEM TO “WORK” AT HOME.
I don’t see how anyone concerned with ethics in government can get past these deficiencies in Palin’s character. A responsible, conservative, pubic servant DOES NOT behave in this manner.
Palin doesn’t have the breadth of experience or deep understanding of complex geo-political issues. However, I may have been more of a supporter if I thought she was truly the honest, sincere, enthusisatic lay person who could charge into Washington with a fresh perspective. All evidence shows that she’s not. The little she had to recommend her is a big LIE.
Interesting how there are not many comments on this post. It’s like we’ve just given up on the possibility that the State of Alaska, in relation to former Gov. Palin, will respond in anyway ethically. Depressing all around.
Yup Seagull, it was interesting at first and now it is downright depressing.
That’s true, isn’t it? I, at least, never expect Mrs. Todd Palin to be ethical about anything, and I don’t expect the state government to REQUIRE her to be ethical about anything. Luckily for the sake of justice and decency, Alaska has some private citizens who are willing to go the distance.
But they keep getting defeated.
A year and a half on, I fully understand the corruption in Alaksa. I don’t think you can win.
Not fully, but I know it is rampant.
Nothing, for $5500.
Karma will fix this, you just need patience. Not that I have ANY, but I am grateful for those that do. Thank you Linda and Andree.
I agree that we have Palin overload on silly stories like her hair.
I’m wondering why no one has put up a copy of the warrant giving the judge in the custody case a security detail?
Maybe we need more chocolate.
Juneau Empire
JUNEAU – An attorney for activist Andree McLeod said he’ll ask an Alaska judge to reconsider a ruling last week that state law doesn’t forbid the use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business. If the judge refuses, attorney Don Mitchell says McLeod could appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
The case stems from a 2008 records request by McLeod, which showed then-Gov. Sarah Palin and members of her staff had been using private e-mail accounts.
McLeod argued that use of private accounts obstructs the people’s right to inspect public records. She maintained that Palin and the governor’s office had a responsibility to save all e-mails related to state business.
Here’s the link:
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/012610/reg_554969066.shtml
McLeod to ask judge to reconsider ruling
I agree with others, Alaska’s judicial system appears to be asleep at the wheel and always has been. I don’t hold out any hope for this email issue to go any further. Ultimately if and when she’s brought down it will be on a federal level.
That’s what it took with stevens, AK just turns a blind eye. I’m hoping for the IRS, isn’t that who in the end took down capone? My late father always told me you might get away with something but in the end the irs is who will take you out. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that she has wasilly h & r block prepare her 2009 tax statements as usual, what a twit.
Andree is fantastic…but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the judge to reconsider. The MSM has been bought and sold as well. Apart from the bloggers, there is no one out there telling the truth.
I am in a funk tonight (new word for me, courtesy of my global friends).
Breaking news, courtesy of paco_gal on the forum.
Filmmaker Who Broke ACORN Story Arrested For Attempted Bugging Of Landrieu’s Office
James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker who was behind the undercover operations that led to the ACORN scandal last year, has been arrested with three others for allegedly trying to bug the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) yesterday, the Times-Picayune is reporting.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/filmmaker_who_broke_acorn_story_arrested_for_attem.php?ref=fpa
“That was Sarah Palin. She was the giant sucking thing that showed us all the places we need to patch up government – all the places that need work. ”
Oh my gosh that just cracked me up! Snorting! Perfect! Falling off chair! Thanks AKM, that’s the best description of the ex gove— yet!
Did y’all see that the pimp in the “Acorn sting” was arrested for trying to bug Mary Landreau of LA’s office?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/26/fox-okeefe/
Go Irish!
“She was the giant sucking thing that showed us all the places we need to patch up government – all the places that need work.”
AKM – Well done!
Kudos to Andree and Don for taking this legal battle to the courts and to Linda for her detailed and passionate reporting and her own battles against ethics abuse!
AKM – I would love to know what McLeod has to say about this. Does she have a blog?
As I am reading the posting and the comments (in addition to reading Thom Hartmann’s “Screwed” ) this keeps crossing my mind….
If the former 1/2 Term Gov. WAS employed in the “real world” – not on the PlanetPalin Employer – would her employer (such as Faux News) want her conducting business via Yahoo email? Or would they want to track what she is working on, appts pending, perhaps even those High School comments about Glenn Beck & O”Reilly. Much less being an insider …. would Faux want potential company information exposured to an “outside mail service”? Do you suppose Faux news is going to pay her a per diem to park her butt in her AK living room without working…. will she charge them the token $65. if they call her at home about work? Will Faux pay for her children to travel with her, plus all those meals etc. while she is on assignment? I doubt even Faux would consider what she charged the state of AK as “business expenses” ! If MSNBC gives her a pair of snowmachine clothes — and Faux pays for her IronDog trip – would THEY be upset if she wore MSNBC? You Betcha !
Altho we all know the Government moves slower than a snail – most State governments should take some lessons from Companies — Emails with anything work related – must go through or CC’d to Company email archive. If you want to use a personal email account – don’t do it at work or it must be approved by the Company IT – which many times will code it thru the email archive system for company review.
There is NO privacy in the workplace – ergo – why should our elected officials expect privacy ?
The Former 1/2 Term Gov. of Alaska’s problem is — she hasn’t worked enough outside of Government. Those ethic complaints would have gotten a person FIRED in the real world….. at least a reprimand !
DK @ 8 – in one word “NO.” Certainly not in the fashion as he acted with respect to Troopergate. He is not a state employee and is therefore not entitled to the same protections as bonafide state employees. And she may not allow him to utilize state resources to settle personal family scores.
AKM – Brilliant:
—————————-
You think you’re living in a nice energy efficient box, and then the sucking starts and you can feel ice cold air streaming in through light switches, and wall outlets and around windows.
That was Sarah Palin.
—————————–
Sometimes I’m a little slow on the uptake, comprehending the ramifications of rulings and developments that affect the public. It takes writers like AKM and our other cozy collection of bloggers or citizen activists to lay it out for us so that people like me can laser in on the crux of the matter behind the smoke, mirrors and utter BS. Heck, the Mudflats community comments have taught even more beyond the posts.
I imagine that Celtic Diva and Andree McLeod undergo particularly nasty and fearsome harrassment daily from Palin fans. It was curious from day one (Aug. 08) that anyone simply questioning McCain’s move with Sarah was branded a hater in the public forum. If C4P’s cost me my ADN moniker in the comments section (and I was by no means insulting or personally attacking our dear Sarah who was so very in over her head) what of these high profile ladies?
Some pack concealed heat and abuse that right by turning it into a weapon promising violence. I wrote a letter to the editor once and got some pretty startling accusations about what kind of person I was, and it was a fairly innocuous issue – but think Eddie Burke with the anti-Palin rally organizers. They have an M.O. – be loud and brand you a baby killer, and the troops (soldiers of God, generally) will take the lead.
Alaska is so funny, but reading more about other State’s lawmakers have revealed that we aren’t the only ones that cultivated a CBC culture. But seeing Sarah Palin shoot up to the level of legitamacy beyond our penny-ante State issues (big oil aint small potatoes, but dealing with such a small population aint rocket science as our Wasilla Mayor once said) remains so unbelievably surreal. From what little has been exposed in these emails, it further goes to show how immature, ill-suited and alarmingly inadequate our Governor was. . .
I’ve said it before, no matter how alarming it is to have Sarah unleashed on the American public – her lack of hubris revealed more about her in that stupifying campaign effort than it would have taken had she finished out her first term and ran for another. If she had shot for the moon instead and built a real record of Gubernatorial accomplishment, she may have been able to develop a more nationwide appeal beyond the fringe she enjoys now. So while we Alaskans and the world’s mudpups still may be suffering PTSD – it’s better that Sarah was exposed for the fraud she is earlier on than if she actually took advice from experts and built this polished faux credibility for the remainder of her Chief Executive stint. This is giving her a lot of credit of course, her frenetic door plowing paths remain disjointed and confusing. I know hundreds of Alaskan off-the-grid folks, even small village residents that have more of a world-view, education (or not) and stately than this Wasillan train-wreck. And this isn’t even about Wasilla or the Valley, she is an anomaly even for a quirky cheechako-ey sourdough (yes, she’s both.) And Ugly Alaskan and an Ugly American.
We still need to keep on her, for as long as she tries to be a pundit and influence public policy.
So, to those of you to be so publically brave to stalwartly press the matter of accountability and transparency in government, I salute you (but remain anonymous behind the safety of my Mudflats moniker.)
Quyana, thank you AKM, LKB and AM.
@8 DK — I agree that, except for security clearance issues, spouses (but not all family members) of elected officials are reasonably considered to be extensions of the official. Most Western societies consider a married couple to be a single legal entity in many areas.
However, that marital privilege comes with corresponding obligations — the spouse is required to exercise the same care with respect to confidential information as does the elected official, and the spouse may never be an surrogate for the performance of official actions. For example, if Sarah tells Todd some non-public information, and he reveals it, or uses it in some way; both of them should be punished. If Todd tells one of Sarah’s subordinates to do something — even if he is just passing on her actual instructions — he is breaking the law, because he is not in the official chain of command.
The email issue is relatively unsettled, because email is a rather recent development. I offer my usual I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer.
If the only issue is that Todd was cc’d on some emails, I would consider that mostly irrelevant. In my view of the world, it would be acceptable for Sarah to give copies of her sent emails to her spouse, without changing the confidentiality level of the emails; so copying him via sendmail would be a non-issue. For incoming emails, the question is slightly trickier — strictly speaking, the emails should pass through Sarah first, so that she could decide if Todd should get a copy. But blanket approval isn’t that hard to defend at the state government level, where enhanced security level communications are rare to none.
I realize that this opinion may not be popular on the Flats, but the law has to even apply to a-holes. I’d be happy as a clam to be proven wrong, and I’d also like to see the law changed to explicitly eliminate the email loophole and any similar ones — marital pillow talk is okay, but nothing else. But right now, I think we’re out of luck. If there were some other non-administration person on the cc: list, I think it would make it public; but spouses have traditionally had a special case.
BTW, like sauerkraut says, if Toddo did anything based on the confidential info, he is liable for all sorts of crimes.
The opinion’s appreciated, strangelet. saurekraut, I’m afraid you’re missing the general issue here. The issue isn’t how Todd had unlawful access to classified files or acted as a semi-autonomous agent (speaking to Monnegan not-quite-on Sarah’s behalf, for instance), the issue is should he be privy to sensitive information. My basic idea is that we marry, I would hope, people we trust and whose opinion we value. Even if they’re wrong, a conversation with such a well-known and well-trusted person as a good spouse could be highly beneficial for an elected official if for no other purpose than to offer a different view. As strangelet said, though, it is right that the original sender (Sarah) be held responsible in the case of a spouse revealing information.
The issue about T Palin has nothing to do with security or spousal relationships.
The court opinion which the redactions relied on has all to do with privacy of the delibrative and policy making functions of the Executive branch- that people involved may feel free to express and discuss, broadly, ideas and actions without fear that their free form discussions will bite em in the hiney as they develop policy. Mr Palin was not part of the Executive branch and should NOT have been CCed. His position as Gov spouse might allow FWDs or BCCs from his wife ONLY- but he should never have been in a general recipient list.
woops
Mr Palin was not part of the Executive branch NOR A MEMBER OF ANY RECOGNIZED ENTITY COVERED UNDER THIS COURT RULING , SUCH AS ADVISORY CABINETS, BOARDS, OR COMMISSIONS.and should NOT have been CCed. His position as Gov spouse might allow FWDs or BCCs from his wife ONLY- but he should never have been in a general recipient list.
His status as spouse should have been entirely a private matter with his wife.