{"id":1136,"date":"2012-02-01T11:59:51","date_gmt":"2012-02-01T16:59:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/cca-and-the-problem-with-industrial-authority-confidentiality-agreements.html"},"modified":"2013-04-09T11:13:24","modified_gmt":"2013-04-09T15:13:24","slug":"cca-and-the-problem-with-industrial-authority-confidentiality-agreements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/cca-and-the-problem-with-industrial-authority-confidentiality-agreements.html","title":{"rendered":"CCA and the problem with Industrial Authority confidentiality agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"In the\r\n\r\nconfidentiality agreeement<\/a>\r\nCCA and VLCIA signed way back on 17 August 2009,\r\nI see nothing that says the Industrial Authority can’t talk about CCA\r\nin general terms.\r\nAnd I see a lot of things that a governmental entity by state law\r\ncan’t hide if the public requests them.\r\nAnd that VLCIA has now revealed.\r\nWhich means the Industrial Authority has violated that agreement because\r\nstate law required it to.\r\nSo what does that say about the validity of other contracts VLCIA\r\nhas signed with CCA?\r\nAnd what does it say about the practice of this governmental entity\r\nsigning confidentiality agreements?\r\n

\r\nThat agreement includes this legal boilerplate:\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nit will use any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information to\r\nwhich it has access solely for the purpose set forth herein and that it will\r\nindefinitely protect the confidentiality of such information and will not\r\ndirectly or indirectly disclose, reproduce, distribute, transmit or transfer\r\nby any means in any form any confidential documents, information\r\nand\/or trade secrets that AUTHORITY may have or acquire during the\r\nEvaluation Period.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nThere’s nothing in there that says VLCIA can’t even say in their board\r\nmeetings that Project Excel is a private prison for CCA.\r\nAnd outside board meetings, some board members have no reluctance to\r\nacknowledge that.\r\n

\r\nConfidentiality agreements like that are normal between two business entities.\r\nThey seem a little odd between a business entity and a governmental agency.\r\nFor example, that Agreement continues:\r\n

\r\nFor purposes of this Agreement, “confidential, proprietary, or trade\r\nsecret information” includes, but is not limited to, marketing materials,\r\nconceptual site drawings and images, form contract agreements, the\r\nidentities of business contacts and the relationships developed with\r\nsuch contacts during the Evaluation Period, proposed terms of purchase\r\nand sale, if any….\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\nYet many of those things are by their nature public records that VLCIA\r\nis required to hand over in response to an open records request,\r\nsuch as the one Matt Flumerfelt made which produced documents such as these:\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\nMarketing materials\r\n<\/DT>\r\n
\r\n\r\nCCA Brochure<\/a>\r\n<\/DD>\r\n
\r\nConceptual site drawings and images\r\n<\/DT>\r\n
\r\n