Portal:Good news
From Sunshine Review
| ||||
| Report It • The Good • The Bad • The Ugly | ||||
- FOIA legislation
- FOIA litigation
- Sunshine Guardians
- Online access upgrades
- Transparency advancements
Washington Task Force Suggests New Records Office
Olympia, WA On Tuesday November 2, the Washington state open records task force announced that it would endorse a new Office of Open Records, which when created by the legislature, would handle open records disputes and reduce the need for pursuing remedies through the judiciary. The Office would be modeled after open records offices in other states, including Pennsylvania and Connecticut. While their function was merely advisory, the committee hopes that the four legislators on the committee will endorse and sponsor a bill to create the office sometime in the near future.[1]
New California Law Attempts to Sidestep CPRA
The bill, AB 1336, would permit cities to place cameras on public street sweeping vehicles throughout California in order to photograph parking violations. However, what has freedom of information rights activists angered is the portion of the bill which explicitly exempts these photos from public records requests. By creating an exemption outside of the CPRA, the California legislature establishes their power to ear mark exemptions within future bills and thus sidestep the CPRA in an obvious move towards secrecy.[2]
Illinois governor signs bill to improve FOIA laws
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) championed the open records legislation that Gov. Quinn signed into law. The new law, which will take effect January 1, 2010, will make government more transparent and public records more easily available. Attorney General Madigan has been negotiating this legislation with lawmakers, non-profits, like the Better Government Association and the National Freedom of Information Coalition, and other interested organizations, including the Illinois Press Association.
The new law amends the Illinois Freedom of Information Act to shorten the time frame for governmental bodies to respond to public records requests from seven to five business days. It also shortens the time allowed in an extension from seven to five business days.
Under the new law, Madigan can have her public access counselor make decisions about whether public bodies should or should not release public records, a decision that can then be enforced by the courts.[3]
Transparency-improving bill on Illinois governor's desk
This Senate Bill that has been passed on to the Governor as of June 26, 2009, amends the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. It requires that an applicant (for gubernatorial appointment to boards, commissions, authorities, and task forces) must provide specified documents to the Governor's Office of Boards and Commissions, the Office must hold a public hearing before appointing or nominating an applicant, the Office must provide to the Senate specific information on all applicants nominated for Senate confirmation, and the Office must post specified information on its website about appointment requirements, applicants, and appointees.
The bill requires all applicants and appointees to file statements of economic interests. As of now, only nominees for and appointees to positions requiring Senate confirmation must file statements. These changes would be effective immediately.[4]
Chicago's TIF sunshine falls short
When the Department of Community Development (DCD) spokesperson Susan Massel said, "We believe we've done a good job of meeting the requirements of the ordinance."
The DCD website provides a series of PDF documents in the TIF section that must be downloaded in order to be searched.
The "TIF District Overviews" provides a set of links to seven regions: North, Northwest, West, Southwest, South, Far South, and Central. The "TIF Annual Reports" link provides only six groupings of TIF districts: Central Area, North Side, Northwest Side, South Side, Southwest Side, West Side. Five new TIF districts, all designated in 2009, are not provided on the site, making it difficult to have an accurate count of TIF districts.
Comparing the site to the original legislation, the site does not fulfill the requirements because only the most recent annual reports for TIFs designated after July 30, 2004 are published when the ordinance called for all to be published. Also, many of the links are broken in addition to the five missing TIFs passed in 2009.
Massel called the website "a work in progress," though the deadline has passed.[3]
Local officials urge FOIA bill amendments
The Illinois State’s Attorneys Association and the Illinois Municipal League are also pushing for changes. They are all worried about excessive access to public records that would produce a need to hire more people to attend to the records retrieval and would result in having to fire someone else in the state's payroll.
The organizations "would scuttle provisions" for a counselor assigned to records access disputes and would have subpoena power. The counselor would issue decisions infallible except by a judge. Those opposing the amendment bill think that it's going to cause more trouble for the state.
Prosecutors and the municipal league officials say the bill on the governor’s desk would give too much power to one person in addition to making too much work for the receivers of FOIA requests. They oppose criminalizing FOIA violations.
"With this new law, providing paperwork about governments' activities becomes more important than the activities themselves," Frang writes. "It is regrettable that there may be cases where municipalities will be forced to lay off firefighters and police officers so that they can afford more FOIA lawyers and other responders to help comply with this 'primary duty.'"
The state's attorney association is concerned that undercover operatives and informants will be in danger of exposure.
Don Craven is the acting director of the Illinois Press Association and a Springfield lawyer who concentrates on public-records law and he says this claim is nonsense because the bill already has clauses protecting these situations.[3]
Possible FOIA amendments
The Illinois Municipal League wrote a letter in opposition of the amendment bill, saying the state will have to fire police officers and fire fighters in order to higher clerks to do the Freedom of Information Act processing and lawyers to fight the nuisance requests.
The state's attorneys association also wrote a letter to Quinn saying the bill would threaten the state having confidential informants and undercover officers and violate the privacy of crime victims, but the letter did not support the claims.
The Municipal League's letter tells Quinn that citizens will exploit the first-50-pages-are-free rule by sending in requests for 50 pages or less to receive the information they seek. It stated that "FOIA is often used as a political tool not to gather information but to harass and harangue public officials."
"There are questions as to whether the FOIA officer is a de jure or de facto officer, which may trigger issues with appointment procedures and with restrictions on holding multiple offices," the letter says. "There are also potential collective bargaining issues at play."[3]
North Carolina public records bill advances
Under current state law, judges can require a losing party to pay the winner's attorneys fees, but judges rarely do this in public records cases. The idea is to discourage governments from withholding public records, the bill's supporters say the bill's supporters say.
"The public records are the people's records," said Rep. Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill. "They're not our records. They're not the politicians' records."
The Attorney General's Office would have a new division under the bill that would advise about 1,500 governmental units on public records issues. The unit could prevent disputes from going to court by mediating them, hopefully cutting the number of lawsuits while making government more open.[3]
Public records won't be as available in Ohio starting July 1
"Nobody's stopping anybody from having access to public records," Columbiana County Clerk of Courts Anthony Dattilio said. "They just won't have access to personal information or personal identifiers in that record."
Clerks offices in Ohio will remove personal identifying information from requested documents before handing them over to members of the public, including attorneys and abstractors.
The policies are under the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio and take effect July 1. They would strike information such as social security numbers, except for the last four digits, financial account numbers, such as debit card and credit card numbers or banking information, employer and employee identification numbers and a juvenile's name in an abuse, neglect or dependency case, except for the child's initials or a generic abbreviation. However, names and dates of birth will remain public record.
A person cannot walk into a clerk of courts office to request to see a file and have it handed over to them for their perusal anymore. The information that these new policies forbid will have to be stricken from the records before they can see it.[3]
Concealed Guns, Not Records
"It is vital that some public documents be made available to the public and press, simply because the information in them is important. That is why West Virginia has a public records law, requiring that government officials make most documents available to anyone who asks for them.
A bill approved by the West Virginia state Senate would limit that access in an unacceptable manner. It is SB 378, a measure initially intended to improve cooperation between our state and others in regard to permits to carry concealed weapons."
[edit] More information
|
|
| |||||||
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found


