Knight FOI Fund supports another Freedom of Information suit

Columbia, Mo. and San Rafael, Ca. (June 24, 2010) – The First Amendment Coalition (FAC), a member of the National Freedom of Information Coalition (NFOIC), has filed suit against the Los Angeles City Council over the Council’s failure to tell the public, in advance, that it was about to consider and vote on layoffs of thousands of government workers. FAC’s suit, supported by NFOIC's Knight FOI Fund, alleges a “pattern and practice” of violations of the Brown Act and requests declaratory and injunctive relief.

At issue is a City Council special meeting on February 18 at which the Council voted to reaffirm a prior commitment to eliminate 1,000 city jobs and, on top of that, to lay off 3,000 more city employees. Such a controversial action normally would be expected to draw a large crowd of citizens to the Council meeting, many of whom would request to speak about major layoffs. But that did not happen at the February 18 meeting.

The reason? The required public notice for the meeting didn’t give a clue about impending layoffs.

Read more here.

OMLN Partners with NFOIC

The Berkman Center's Online Media Legal Network (OMLN) is partnering with the National Freedom of Information Coalition (NFOIC) to assist with freedom of information lawsuits and to provide online journalists with FOI information and assistance.

The NFOIC received a $2 million, three-year grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to launch the Knight FOI Fund and support open government groups by funding up-front litigation costs, such as filing fees, depositions and initial consultation fees if attorneys are willing to take FOI cases that would otherwise go unfiled.

Read more about the partnership here.

New Knight Foundation Grant to Fund FOI Advocacy

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has approved a new $2 million, three-year grant to the National Freedom of Information Coalition to launch the Knight FOI Fund and support state open government groups.

In light of the declining levels of FOI advocacy due to the economic crisis and the evolution of the news media, the Knight FOI Fund will fund litigation costs, such as filing fees, deposition costs, and initial consultation fees, if attorneys are willing to take cases that otherwise would go unfiled. Additionally, the NFOIC will offer sustainability and project grants for state FOI coalitions, with a call for new grants to be made in the spring of 2010.

Read more information about the Knight FOI Fund and the underlying need for the new funding here and here.

Washington Task Force to Consider an Open Records Board

The Washington state attorney general and state auditor launched a task force to consider how to create a publicly-funded open-records board or commission to decide open-records and open-meetings quickly and outside of court.   The task force includes representatives from the state legislature, government, unions, lawyers and citizen activists.  The task force will craft a recommendation for lawmakers to consider in January.  

For more information about the task force and the Pennsylvania and Connecticut models being considered, click here.  

Utah bill to weaken FOI passes House

The Utah House supported a bill that would exempt records prepared for pending litigation as well as anticipated legal action from the public records act. Open-government advocates are concerned with how lawyers will define "anticipated legal action." The bill will now go to the Senate, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

A bill that would change Utah's public records act passed the House on a 43-27 vote Wednesday.

HB122 would allow some records to be classified as private or protected if prepared for pending litigation -- lawsuits already filed -- and anticipated legal action as well.

The measure has been opposed as a significant dilution of state open records law by a coalition of media organizations, which includes The Salt Lake Tribune.

More here.

$15 a Day Too Low?

Advocates of open government won the latest round in the state's costliest public records case ever.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that higher penalties are in order for King County in a long-running public records case dating to 1997 and dealing with the $300 million Seahawks football stadium that went successfully to a public vote.

Justice Richard Sanders wrote the majority opinion (click here) today. It was signed by three other justices including Justice Mary Fairhurst, Charles Johnson and James Johnson.

The split decision included a dissent by Justice Susan Owens that was also signed by Justice Barbara Madsen and Justice Pro Tem Karen Seinfield (in place of Justice Debra Stephens). Chief Justice Gerry Alexander also penned a dissent in part. Click here for links to all five opinions released in the case today, including the majority, one dissent, two concurrences and one split concurrence/dissent.

The effect of the ruling is to send the case of Armen Yousoufian vs. the office of King County Executive Ron Sims back to the trial court for imposition of higher fines than the $15 per day previously awarded – on grounds that King County’s four-year violation of disclosure law deserves higher sanctions. (The $15 in daily fine were higher than an initial court finding of $5 per day, but Yousoufian, a businessman, had appealed previously to the Supreme Court, which agreed.)

The fines on appeal amounted to $123,780, so by moving the per-day fines to the middle or upper end of the $5 to $100 per day range allowed under the law for a four-year failure to comply with law could conceivably quadruple the sanctions, if not increase them even more.

More here.

Salt Lake Trib Wins A Lawsuit Over Records It Should Have Been Handed The Day It Asked For Them...

Isn't it maddening that a fine FOI newspaper like the Salt Lake Tribune has to waste its litigation bullets on stuff that it should simply be handed that day of teh request? Madness!

Overtime and bonuses for city employees are fair game for public inspection, according to a court decision in a lawsuit between Sandy City and The Salt Lake Tribune.

The Tribune in 2004 requested records containing the names, positions, genders, pay and benefits for Sandy City police officers and fire department employees. The city refused to release certain details, claiming that an individual's bonus and overtime records are private information and not subject to the state Government Records Access and Management Act, which lists a public employee's "gross compensation" as a public record.

Sandy City offered to provide one figure reflecting the sum of overtime, bonus and regular pay for each employee, but Tribune reporters had requested a breakdown of total pay.

"Every other city they asked gave them that information," said Michael Patrick O'Brien, attorney for The Tribune.

The State Records Committee in 2005 upheld the Tribune's request, but Sandy City appealed the decision to the 3rd District Court.

In an opinion filed Friday, Judge Robert P. Faust rejected Sandy City attorneys' definition of "gross compensation" as a total sum that does not segregate overtime and bonuses from regular pay - a definition they supported with Webster's Dictionary, Faust wrote.

More here.