News results show papers displeased with state sunshine laws

Posted on February 26, 2013 by Dlopez

A Google News search reveals that one issue on the top of newspaper reporter’s topic list is the strength and weaknesses of public records and open meetings laws.

Last week, I wrote about The Post-Bulletin in Minnesota which reported on an illegal closed meeting of the Pine Island City Council.

A search for “public records open meetings” yields several headlines relating to the strength of state sunshine laws. Included is another story about a paper noticing the flaws in state transparency. Phil Lewis, Executive Editor of the Daily News, sees Florida’s state sunshine laws as lacking in four areas. Lewis believes that Florida’s laws could strengthen the right to speak in open meetings, enforcing the laws, the price of public records and online access to public records.

The top three results for public records and open meetings news stories regard a new bill in North Carolina. State Sen. Thom Goolsby filed a bill Thursday that would criminalize violations of the open meetings and public records laws. As written, neither the public records nor open meetings laws has a criminal penalty. He hopes penalties encourage government transparency. Goolsby is also working on a bill to increase access to personnel issue deliberations.

After these three stories, the next result is from the Youngstown Vindicator with “Weakening of public records, open meetings law is alarming.” The editorial is a two-pronged attack on the institutions weakening the Ohio Public Records Law: the state legislature and the state supreme court. “The string between tax money and the public should not be severed simply because the money is funneled to a ‘private’ entity. Members of the public still have an interest in how decisions are made about the spending of their money.”

On a positive note, Nevada Assembly committee takes on bills enhancing public records and open meeting laws. The bills would make the public records law more clear by listing out exemptions, and they would require state entities to appoint public records liaisons.

Other public records stories on the top of Google’s News search results show exactly why the strength of public records and open meetings laws matter. In Oklahoma, officials deny a public records violation, while in Georgia local officials admit to an open meetings violation.

An Alternate Reality: The News Without Transparency

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Kristie

Ever wonder what the news would look like without transparency? It is easy to forget, or to never know, what news would look like with the efforts of journalists, citizens, and government making the information available.

“The News Without Transparency” is a project of the Sunlight Foundation that shows you what the news might look like without public access to information. Laws and regulations that force the government to make the data it has publicly available are vital to filling in the blanks in redacted documents available to the public.

The collection of documents throughout 2012 is a poignant example of what the public would know about government without transparency and the freedom of information acts, and is a powerful tool to demonstrate the importance of transparency activists.

Michigan law exempts pension calculations from FOIA

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Cory

Benefit calculations are an integral part of understanding how public pension fund dollars are disbursed to retirees. Starting in April of this year, details of those calculations used by Michigan’s public employee retirement systems will be exempt from the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

The new exemption was included in Senate Bill 797, which passed the legislature and was signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder on December 5, 2012. Section 20h.(3) reads:

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, information regarding the calculation of actual or estimated retirement benefits for members of the system is exempt from disclosure by the system or the political subdivision sponsoring the system pursuant to section 13(1)(d) of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.243.

Actual payments to retirees have been considered public record since at least 2005 when the state Court of Appeals ruled that pension amounts “do not constitute personal information.” That may still be true, but this new law means that the calculations behind payments are not public, and thus deals a severe blow to pension transparency. Knowledge of calculation formulas is precisely what can shed light on the causes of exorbitant retiree payouts.

Benefit calculations typically include three figures: years of service, a “pension factor,” and final average compensation. The first two are relatively easy to discern on their own, without records requests. The third figure, final average compensation, is a different story. As one author pointed out, final average compensation stands out as the most important and illusive of the bunch because it includes much more than an easily discernible employee salary. In his case of 24 Lansing, Michigan police officers, for example, final average compensation exceeded salary by an average of over $11,000.

Michigan’s website currently lists gross wages (including overtime, premium time, etc.), annual leave, compensatory time, longevity pay, performance pay, voluntary plan A hours, banked leave time, and furlough hours as components of “final average compensation.” Retirees and their employers alike often try to boost this total to secure greater pension payments upon retirement.

This seems quite likely given the Detroit News reported that while two-thirds of Michigan state retirees earn less than $20,000, 49 collect yearly payments in excess of $100,000. This information alone was public record and was retrieved through a Freedom of Information Act request. When the new law takes effect, just how this was actually occurred will be kept out of the public’s view.

Transparency in government can be meaningless if it exists for its own sake. It becomes indispensably valuable when citizens use the knowledge it makes possible to change the way governments do business. Specifically, exempting details of benefit calculations from Freedom of Information Act requirements makes this effort undeniably more difficult and makes exceedingly high pension payouts from already underfunded systems more likely.

Innocent until redacted? Church higher-ups ask for protection

Posted on January 7, 2013 by Kristinpedia

A judge must decide on whether or not to redact the names of the officials for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in personnel files being released to the public in relation to child molestation cases.

According to the Associated Press:

More than 550 plaintiffs settled with the archdiocese in 2007 for a record-breaking $660 million, but the agreement also called for a process to vet personnel files for future release. The documents include letters and memos between top church officials and their attorneys, medical and psychological records, complaints from parents and, in some cases, correspondence with the Vatican about abusive priests.

More than 20 accused priests have held up the release in court for five years, arguing that making their files public would violate their privacy rights.

The LA Times and Associated Press are suing about the redaction of church officials who may have known about the abuse and chose to do nothing. They say the public is entitled to know what the priests knew and how they handled the situation.

Recently retired Cardinal Roger Mahony may be one of the many names revealed in the court documents.

If this was a case of public employees or officials who knowingly did nothing to stop child sexual abuse, as in the Sandusky case, there would be little doubt to the public’s right to the knowledge.

But should the church be treated the same as public institutions because it’s not funded by tax revenues? Should names be released for those who have been accused—but not convicted—and settled rather than face a trial?

And while many, including me, have a knee-jerk reaction that the public should know these officials names, the judge must observe the implications of these redactions and how they will be used in our judicial system for future cases.

Illinois open meetings and more

Posted on January 4, 2013 by Dlopez

Government transparency laws in Illinois are a constant source of tumult. One year, Illinois is revamping its Illinois Freedom of Information Act in response to a series of public records failures, and the next it is rolling back improvements and limiting its state public records laws. 2013 proves no exception.

Several new laws go into effect beginning 2013. These require additional government transparency at the municipal level. For example, at minimum, meeting agendas now have to detail the “general subject matter” for action items, and that notices and agendas have to be available for public review for at least 48 hours prior to a meeting.

According to the Journal Star, there are still weaknesses in these laws. Peoria, perhaps unwittingly, made its meeting information available 48 hours prior to a meeting, but the Journal Star points out a problem:

The info went up online after 5 p.m. on a Friday, which definitely didn’t allow for enough time for informed public debate — or, arguably, informed council debate. They complied with the letter of the law, but hardly the spirit.

The Journal Star goes on to note something transparency watchers have known about Illinois for years: that the road to transparency is a bumpy one. The paper claims that Peoria does a “fabulous job (as does Peoria County)” on another front, posting agenda items online including committee agendas.

We will have to wait and see how 2013 shapes up for Illinois public information.