Editor's Note

The FOI Advocate is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The blog relies on the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. We will correct errors and inaccuracies when we become aware of them.
Showing posts with label South Dakota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Dakota. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

ProPublica Gets Blocked Plane List

ProPublica obtained a list from a Federal Aviation Administration program that allows aircraft owners to block flight information from tracking websites. Among those who have asked to be placed on the list:

  • South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds - The superintendent of the state's Highway Patrol said the aircraft was placed on the list for security reasons;
  • Aircrafts owned by an University of Alabama athletic booster club, the University of Florida, Penn State and the University of Mississippi;
  • Coby Brooks, the CEO of Hooters - the Hooters spokesman said they use the plane to conduct unannounced checks on restaurants; and
  • Televangelist Kenneth Copeland and his Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas.
For a more complete list of aircrafts on the special FAA list, click here.

Saturday, March 06, 2010

South Dakota Lawmakers Don't Report Travel Paid for by Special-Interest Groups

From the ArgusLeader.com comes this report on the lack of required reporting for South Dakota lawmakers' travel paid for by business or special-interest groups. South Dakota does not require lawmakers to report how much money pays for such travel or which corporations are involved.

South Dakota lawmakers have been debating whether to put more restrictions on taxpayer-funded out-of-state travel.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

S.D. sees open-government legislation as first step

An editorial that ran in the Argus Leader praised the South Dakota bill that presumes records are open to the public. The bill passed the Legislature and is expected to be signed by the governor. For the future, the paper writes, "However, it should concern all of us that the price for getting this bill passed appears to have been a blanket exception for all officeholders, allowing all correspondence and work documents, even their appointment calendars, to remain closed to the public. Despite the challenges in the new law, though, it's important to remember that this was a key first step."
Let's make at least one thing clear.

The open records bill that passed the Legislature is historic.

It's a major step forward for South Dakota that should be celebrated.
More here.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Presumption of openness bill headed to S.D. governor

From the AP:
A bill creating an open-records law that presumes government documents in South Dakota are public unless there's a good reason for secrecy is headed to the governor.

The state Senate voted 27-0 on Wednesday to accept changes to SB147, a presumption of opennness bill. Supporters say the bill strikes a balance between opening public records and protecting the private information that some agencies hold about people.
More here.

Open-government bill goes to S.D. House

A bill that would assume all government records are public records unless they are exempted by law or rule has been endorsed by a South Dakota House Committee and now goes to the full House for vote, the Associated Press reported.

A South Dakota House committee has endorsed a measure that declares all government records are open to the public unless a law or rule specifically closes them.

SB147 was approved earlier by the Senate.

The House State Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass the bill after approving some changes that were negotiated by lawmakers, the governor's office and representatives of news organizations.

More here.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

S.D. Senate leader optimistic about open records bill

Sen. Dave Knudson is optimistic that his bill to create a presumption of openness concerning government records will pass through the Legislature, the AP reported. He's prepared for amendments. However, the South Dakota governor supports the opposite theory -- the presumption of closure unless the law dictates that a record must be public.
The sponsor of a bill declaring that most government records are open to the public says he’s optimistic he can shepherd the measure through the 2009 Legislature.

Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, will get a chance to explain his presumption of openness measure when the Senate State Affairs Committee holds a public hearing on SB147 Wednesday morning in the Capitol.

The Knudson bill takes the position that all government records are open to the public unless specifically closed by a state law.
More here.

Friday, January 30, 2009

S.D. governor opposes new open-records legislation

South Dakota legislation that would presume all records are open unless they are specifically closed or exempted by law has support from top-ranking Democrats and Republicans in each chamber. Gov. Mike Rounds, however, could veto the bill, which he said could lead to the disclosure of personal information about private citizens that had been gathered by an official.
A coalition of Republicans and Democrats began a drive Thursday to strengthen South Dakota's laws on open government records and to require more information about state government contracts and finances be available on the Internet.

The open-records legislation is patterned on Nebraska law and would presume that records are open unless they are specifically closed or exempted by law. South Dakota law currently says public records are only those that state law requires a government to keep.

Gov. Mike Rounds told South Dakota Newspaper Association members Thursday, however, that he prefers keeping the current approach.
More here.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

South Dakota legislators must reveal identity to get records

State officials in South Dakota have been instructed to not provide data requested by the Legislative Research Council, which conducts research for lawmakers, unless the identity of the requesting legislator is revealed. While in most states, such a policy would be illegal, South Dakota does not yet have a law that presumes that all government records are public. An effort to pass such a bill is expected this year.

The excuses for demanding to know which legislator is asking questions? Well, for one, the governor claims this allows the staff to tailor the information provided to different lawmakers, adding more background for new legislators. He's also worried that useless requests will rob his staff of valuable time.
When state Sen. Gene Abdallah wanted to know how many aircraft the state owns, he figured it would be easy to get the information.

So last month, the Sioux Falls Republican made a request through the Legislative Research Council - the state's research arm for lawmakers.

The LRC had a list of aircraft, but to get details about those planes - their conditions and estimated values - a researcher had to ask officials in Gov. Rounds' administration.
More here.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

South Dakota House Passes Reform Bill

A bill that would set up an appeals process to resolve disputes over access to government records in South Dakota has been approved 68-1 by the state House.

If an agency denies a request for records, the person seeking those records could have the dispute reviewed by the state Office of Hearing Examiners.

The office could hold a hearing before determining if records should be released or remain closed to the public.

SB186 was approved earlier by the state Senate but must be returned to see if it agrees with some changes made by the House.

Friday, February 22, 2008

South Dakota Reform Fails...

A House committee Wednesday killed an open-records bill that would require the government to justify denying public access to documents.

The measure raises too many questions about how records dealing with personal information, public safety or other sensitive issues would be treated, some opponents said.

"I think they need to go back to the task force and work on a bill that they can agree on there, then bring it back," said Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls, after the House's State Affairs Committee killed the bill 7-6.

Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown, sponsored the bill. She said after the meeting that although the vote was close, she doubted she'd try to revive it this session.

"I will keep working on it and hammering at it," she said. "It isn't finished by any means."

She said opposition from Gov. Mike Rounds' office helped kill the bill.

"Whatever we'd try to change at this point would be nitpicked word by word," Turbak Berry said.

She served on a task force organized by Attorney General Larry Long that reviewed the status of government records in South Dakota. State law generally says records required by law to be kept are open. Numerous specific laws close different individual records or classes of records. But Long's review found that a vast number of records fall somewhere between those two areas. It also found that government officials have wide discretion to make decisions on whether to open or close records.

More here.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

South Dakota Effort to Make Criminal Records More Accessible Fails

South Dakota landlords squared off Wednesday against the state court system and lost in a tussle over criminal records.

Landlords told the Senate Judiciary Committee that it's expensive and time consuming to get criminal background reports on prospective tenants because the court system doesn't offer that information on the Internet.

Criminal background reports on people are available to the public at clerks of court and through the state court system.

SB160 would have required the court system to provide a Web site for criminal history reports as soon as possible, and it would have limited the fee to $5 or the cost of providing the information, whichever was less. The bill was killed 6-1.

More here.


Thursday, January 24, 2008

South Dakota reform effort update...

Several bills filed in the South Dakota Legislature seek to change state laws that determine which government documents are open to the public.

Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls and House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center filed identical versions of a proposal they have said will probably increase the number of records open to the public. SB186 and HB1280 also would set up a process for handling disputes over access to state and local government records.

Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown, also filed a bill intended to open more records to public inspection. Her measure, SB189, includes provisions similar to the Republican bill, but it uses different language.

A task force headed by Attorney General Larry Long wrote proposals that would clarify which records are open and would set up a process to resolve disputes over records. Much of the language in the task force measures has been included in the Republican leaders' bills.

More here.

Monday, January 21, 2008

S.D. Bill Would Create Mediation Program...

Gaining access to government records in South Dakota can be a hassle at times, and disputes over what is public and what is off-limits are not unusual.

Legislation designed to settle those arguments before they end up in court has been introduced by state Rep. Tim Rave, R-Baltic, and state Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls.

Rave said HB1246 would allow the state Office of Hearing Examiners to settle disputes over public records that could otherwise wind up in a stalemate.

"There has to be someplace to go when those disputes come up," Rave said. "At least the two parties can walk away with a resolution. It's either they walk away with what they wanted or at least somebody made a ruling on it. It would get rid of the ambiguity that we have now."

HB1246 would set up both informal and formal processes to request records from the state, cities, counties, school boards and townships. Records of the state court system and Public Utilities Commission would be exempt, however.

More here.