Georgia Senate Adds 911 Calls to Open Records Exemptions

In addition to crime scene photographs, the Georgia Senate also wants to exclude 911 emergency calls that reveal a victim's "personal suffering" from the state's Open Records Act. It was an amendment to the bill unanimously passed by the House that excludes crime scene photographs from the Open Records Act.

Read more here.

Idaho Wolf Hunters Protected at Expense of Public Records Law

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a law on April 8 that removes state-issued hunting permits, licenses and tags from the public record and that makes it illegal to "harass, intimidate or threaten" hunters via telephone, e-mail or website postings. The move of creating a public records exemption for a specific, small group sets a dangerous precedent and threatens to chisel away at transparency laws to where they become obsolete.

The Idaho law was prompted by the records request of a local activist who then posted the names of wolf hunters on a website.

For more information, click here.

Texas Senate approves bill that exempts employee data

The Texas Senate unanimously passed a bill that automatically exempts data about current and former state government employees, the Austin American-Statesman reported. This includes home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers. Another exemption could keep employee photos, time sheets and work locations private.

The Texas Senate today approved a bill that will allow current and former government employees in Texas to keep secret an increased array of state-kept information about themselves.

Things such as home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security number and information that “reveals whether the person has family members” could be kept secret.

Under current law, employees can opt to keep that information secret. Under Senate Bill 331, it will automatically be exempt from the Texas Public Information Act.

More here.

Changes to N.M. open government bill 'cripple' it

A New Mexico bill promoting transparency has turned sour for open-government advocates, The Santa Fe New Mexican reported. The proposed bill was intended to reduce the time agencies have to produce the information from FOI requests (from 15 days to 10) and clarify that requests can be made via e-mail. The bill's sponsor, Ken Martinez, is now trying to restore the bill after a substitute by the House Health and Government Affairs Committee stripped out the quicker-release provision and added in new exemptions, which would allow the denial of public records to someone a public body is in litigation with. The exemptions tend to be broad, such as exempting "records of a public body, that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the public body to avoid the frustration or a legitimate government function."

Open-government and press advocates say proposed new exemptions to the state's public records law have made a good government bill turn bad.

House Bill 507, sponsored by House Majority Leader Ken Martinez, D-Grants, aimed to speed up the response time for getting public records, as well as make clear that e-mail can be used to make a formal request under the act.

But a committee substitute for the measure being pushed by executive agencies under the Richardson administration stripped out the quicker-release-of-records provision from the bill. Meanwhile, the new bill would create new exemptions to the Inspection of Public Records Act — changes that Martinez cannot support and never intended.

More here.

The Ever-Shrinking Community...NC Seeks to Keep Secret Names of Little Leaguers

A frequent rant of mine is the ever-narrowing conceptualization of information that ought to be public, such as the fact that little Johnny drove in three runs in the game last night...while I see no reason to release dates of birth and the like, what about a name and an age?

Efforts to keep identifying information about children who participate in local recreational programs cleared a subcommittee on Wednesday.

The subcommittee, which is looking at a bill introduced by two Alamance County representatives - Democrat Alice Bordsen and Republican Cary Allred - along with Rep. Karen Ray, R-Iredell, also chose to recommend that the new proposed law clarify that coaches and recreation staff members could release that information if they chose to. However, they would not be required to do so.

The bill would exclude from the public record identifying information of a minor, such as the minor's name, address, age, date of birth, telephone number, name and address of the minor's parents and any other information on an application to participate in a recreation program.

Charles Marshall, representing the N.C. Press Association, requested that the name and age of the child continue to be public record to facilitate reporters and photographers who might be covering a youth sporting event.

Reps. Bonner Stiller, R-Brunswick, and Debbie Clary, R-Cleveland, argued for keeping such identifying information public.

"The worst thing that can happen is to put the wrong name under a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old who is the triple hitter," Clary said.

More here.

USDA Seeks the Mother of All FOIA Exemptions

Talk about attacking a molehill with a nuclear weapon...without public notice or debate, a provision secretly tucked into the Farm Bill Conference Report (Sec. 1619, "Information Gathering") nullifies a recent, major federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public large amounts of data crucial to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of multi-billion-dollar farm subsidy and conservation programs.

Mulch -- a great blog on all things farm-y, does such a great job on this that I am just going to take you there...

Concealed-Carry Secrecy Dies in Tennessee...

Not sure I can follow the political theater here, but the bottom line is that Tennessee remains one of the only states where citizens can still scrutinize concealed-carry permits...

A proposal to make secret the names and addresses of Tennesseans who have handgun carry permits died in a whirlwind of political intrigue Wednesday, aided by state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

First, freshman House member Henry Fincher engineered a vote on the bill while two of its opponents — two of his more senior colleagues — were out of the room.

More here.

Bad Idea Watch: Secret State Grants in Iowa?

The secrecy surrounding economic development is a theme today. In Iowa, some fear that transparency will keep some companies from applying for state grants. I say let 'em sit it out, then. If they can't come clean with the public, they certainly don't need taxpayer money.

Lawmakers are considering a proposal to allow companies that apply for state economic grants to keep larger portions of their information secret.

Some opponents fear the move would allow projects such as a nuclear power plant to gain state grant money before the public learns of the plan.

Supporters say the state needs to keep more business information confidential to prevent competitors from scooping potentially revolutionary ideas as their own...

Iowa in the past year launched the $100 million Power Fund program, which will allocate millions of dollars to programs aimed at boosting renewable fuel research and production. Some companies have expressed hesitation to apply for such grants because of Iowa's records policies, said Mike Tramontina, director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development.

House File 2558 allows Tramontina's department to establish policies to allow some information in grant applications to remain secret if requested by the applicant. Such information could include marketing strategies, business expansion plans, concepts that are not yet patented and plans to target certain customers. The idea has passed the House, as well as the Senate Economic Growth Committee. It is now eligible for debate by the full Senate.

More here.

Bad Idea Watch: Secret Negotiations Between Industry and Govt in Louisiana?

Keep your eye on this popular new exemption, which seems to be about the worst idea in the history of policy making, especially in Louisiana, no stranger to the smoke-filled room...

A Senate committee advanced legislation Wednesday that would allow state government to continue to negotiate behind closed doors with businesses.

Economic Development Secretary Stephen Moret said the state stands to lose the opportunity to land thousands of new jobs if negotiations cannot be conducted in secret.

On large projects, businesses often require “an absolute commitment of confidentiality” because they are contemplating locations in multiple states, he said. Louisiana officials also do not want other states to know what incentives they are offering, he said.

“We’re in a competition that’s growing more and more challenging every day,” Moret told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and International Affairs.

The panel approved the legislation without objection.

More here.

Exempt Contractors From FOI? A Baaaad Idea in CT...

A bill that would exempt state and municipal contractors from Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act faces an uncertain future amid criticism that it would overturn recent attempts to promote governmental openness and transparency.

Rep. Christopher L. Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the ethics-minded Government Administration & Elections Committee, was sure Tuesday that when the legislation reaches his committee, as anticipated, he would work to kill it.

"It's not going to make it out of committee," Caruso said in an interview.

The bill recently passed the Insurance & Real Estate Committee, where lawmakers including Sen. Joseph J. Crisco Jr., D-Woodbridge, co-chairman of the panel, supported the bill in a 13-4 vote.

Crisco and other proponents of the legislation, including Rep. John Harkins, R-Stratford, another committee member, said the intent of the bill was to protect businesses from revealing some proprietary information, while allowing the public access to data through the Freedom of Information Commission.

Crisco called the bill a "work in progress" and said he is amenable to compromises.

More here.

AP Sunshine Week Story: States Rolling Back Access

The AP's contribution to Sunshine Week is an excellent look at the national picture:

Some things your government doesn’t have to tell you about:

* The safety plan at your child’s school, if you live in Iowa.

* Medication errors at your grandparent’s nursing home in North Carolina.

* Disciplinary actions against Indiana state employees.

States have steadily limited the public’s access to government information since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new Associated Press analysis of laws in all 50 states has found. Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information, approving more than twice as many measures that restrict information as laws that open government books.

The horror of the attacks spurred a wholesale re-examination of information that could put the country in danger, and the state actions roughly mirror those on the federal level. Federal agencies responded by shutting down Web sites, pulling telephone directories and rethinking everything from dam blueprints to historical records.

In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness — including journalists and civil liberties groups — against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it’s by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards. Security concerns typically won out.

The AP discovered a clear trend from the Sept. 11 attacks through legislative work that ended last year: States passed 616 laws that restricted access — to government records, databases, meetings and more — and 284 laws that loosened access. Another 123 laws had either a neutral or mixed effect, the AP found.

“What these open government laws do is break down that wall of government secrecy so that everybody knows what’s going on,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporter Committee for Freedom of the Press. “A democracy can only function if we have information. You can only have oversight of government if you have information.”

Associated Press reporters in every state, often with help from their local press associations, tracked the government access bills introduced since the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon were hit by hijacked planes.

In every state, reporters tallied bills that were proposed each year, and then examined the laws that passed. They assessed the impact of each new measure and rated it as loosening existing limits on public access to government information, restricting the limits, or neutral.

While fear of another terrorist attack drove many new proposals, it wasn’t the only motivator. Concerns about identity theft, medical privacy and the vulnerability of computerized records have sparked many pieces of legislation, too.

Lawmakers say they are recalibrating the balance between information that could be used against society and what society at large needs to know.

“Since Sept. 11, we’re looking at information like plans for our nuclear plants, the records of our bridges and transportation systems. All of the critical information that is out there that we don’t necessarily want to put in the hands of a terrorist,” said New York state Sen. Nick Spano, a Republican who had proposed tightening legislation soon after the attacks.

“It’s a very difficult balance between the public’s right to know and the public’s right to security,” Spano said. A different security measure ultimately became law, limiting access to information about infrastructure from airports to cellular phone systems. Last year, Spano authored a law that strengthened public access by setting a strict deadline for state agencies to respond to requests for information.

The give and take of a legislature usually forces changes to such bills — like a measure proposed last year in Oklahoma, where freshman state Sen. Charles Wyrick, a Democrat, sought to completely exempt the state’s new Department of Homeland Security from the Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act.

“I don’t know why all of a sudden the holy grail of security and safety is now closing records,” Mark Thomas, head of the Oklahoma Press Association, said after the bill was introduced. “It seems to me we would be more secure if we knew what was going on around us. ... Apparently there are those in government who want to close all these records and say, ‘We’ll keep you safe, trust us.’”

Negotiations brought a compromise. The law that passed allowed the department to keep communications between the agency and the federal government confidential, along with security plans for private businesses.

“We had to fight that out, and basically it ended up being an equal distribution of unhappiness,” Thomas said.

Still, the numerical data shows which side got more out of negotiations overall: The AP analysis of 1,023 new laws dealing with public access to government information found that more than 60 percent closed access. Just over a quarter created new avenues of access. The rest had a neutral effect, often through technical changes to existing laws.

Those laws emerged from just over 3,500 bills. Often, several legislators interested in a topic will each introduce a bill knowing that only one is likely to pass. In some states, the same legislation is introduced in both House and Senate chambers to speed action and build support.

Across more than four years, 36 states passed more restrictive laws than laws that loosened access; seven states passed more laws that eased barriers to access; seven states passed equal numbers. The analysis did not attempt to quantify the impact of larger, sweeping laws versus smaller modifications.

The AP analysis also did not study legislation prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, though observers say the changes have been obvious.

“What we see nationwide is states really backing away from their open access laws,” said Fred H. Cate, an Indiana University law professor who studies privacy and technology. Security threats are real — but some lawmakers are just “taking advantage of the public security tide,” he said.

More here.

A Bad Exemption In Maryland, Part II

A bill blocking access to some information requested under the Maryland Public Information Act will be referred to a subcommittee for amendments. The bill, introduced at the request of Baltimore City, would require anyone seeking information from a state or local government agency related to a pending lawsuit, to obtain a court order.

David Ralph, chief of the city Law Department's Litigation and Claims Division, testified Feb. 27 before the House Health and Government Operations Committee that the city was overwhelmed by requests from attorneys trying to circumvent trial-discovery laws by gaining access to further information under Maryland's Public Information Act. Ralph told legislators that the bill had "nothing to do with the limitation of public information. The only thing we care about is requests that were meant to be abusive."

The Public Information Act, which became law in 1970, governs the release of state documents and provides instances in which documents cannot be released, such as where the information could compromise trade secrets or medical information.

More here.

At Least Five FOI Bills In Georgia...

The public's right to government records could shrink or expand depending on the outcome of five bills vying for lawmakers' approval this session.

While one measure would allow judges to keep the public from seeing sexually explicit evidence in criminal trials (a response to a notorious teen sex case), another would raise the bar legislators must clear to keep records from the public eye.

Just two weeks ago, contractors' bids and contracts with development authorities -- documents the public has a right to view -- seemed headed toward secrecy under House Bill 1200, sponsored by Rep. Wendell Willard, R-Sandy Springs. However, the House State Planning & Community Affairs Committee tabled the bill and a motion to revive it failed this week....

Making it harder to create an exemption is at the heart of Senate Resolution 970, which resides in the hands of the Senate Ethics Committee.

S.R. 970 proposes a constitutional amendment that would require any new exemption to the Open Record Act to get a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, a so-called supermajority that now is reserved for proposed constitutional amendments...

More here.

An Editorial on a Hideous Exemption Proposed in Maryland

Fine editorial in today's Washington Post:

PRACTICALLY every state in the nation has a law that eases access to public records and documents, a godsend for researchers, public advocacy groups and ordinary citizens, not to mention lawyers and journalists. Those laws, modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act, have been mainstays of open and transparent government for several decades. That's why legislation pending in Maryland to cripple the state's Public Information Act is so singularly dimwitted.

Want state records on the Chesapeake Bay cleanup? Crime statistics? Information on the juvenile justice system? The legislation would block access to all of that if the request for information were "related to" a pending lawsuit -- a staggeringly broad and undefined exemption that would be almost impossible to administer. It would force document-seekers to petition a court to grant access to records that have been readily available for decades. No wonder Maryland judges, among many others, have opposed the legislation, warning that it may well be unconstitutional and would certainly result in a logjam of motions in court.

New Exemption for Animal Researchers in Utah

The Utah House of Representatives passed a bill to conceal the names, personal addresses and phone numbers of U animal researchers.

The bill, which passed unanimously Feb. 22 and the Senate president signed on Monday, would modify the Government Records Access and Management Act to classify personal information of researchers who do medical or scientific research on animals at Utah colleges and universities as protected documents. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. must now sign the bill for it to become law.

Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, sponsored the bill in response to animal rights protesters from the group Utah Primate Freedom who, he said, had been harassing U researchers and vandalizing their homes.

"The public has the right to understand what research is going on...but they don't need to know specific information of workers," Bell told The Daily Utah Chronicle earlier this month. "Basic human dignity and decency requires that we have people in good faith pursuing legitimate research, but we shouldn't be harassing people just because we disagree with them. But that hasn't worked, so we have to resort to legal means."

Utah Primate Freedom activist Harold Rose said the legislation won't have any effect on the group's campaign to stop animal research.

"It's more of a symbolic gesture on their part," Rose said. "Unless they completely cease doing research, we're going to hear about it."

Rose said none of the names or addresses of researchers his organization has used to target researchers' homes were found through GRAMA requests or the Freedom of Information Act, because the U denied all of their requests. The group petitioned the U for the identities, positions and salaries of researchers last year, but the U denied the request, a decision the Utah State Records Committee upheld. On one occasion, Utah Primate Freedom submitted a request for the types and number of animals being used for research at the U, which was also denied.

More here.

A Brave Legislative Act in Utah: Admitting Error

Don't vote for my bill.

It's a phrase rarely heard at the Utah Legislature, but that didn't stop Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, during a committee meeting Friday.

At the tail end of a long debate on SB260, Buttars asked his colleagues to vote against his bill that would make private all formal charges and disciplinary actions against a peace officer. Committee members listened and killed the bill in the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee on Friday.

"This isn't what I thought it was," Buttars said. "I really think this is not a good bill, and if you're going to vote on it, I would vote 'no' at this time."

Buttars said he wanted the bill to conceal disciplinary actions if the officer were exonerated. But the bill didn't do that at all. It provided blanket protections for records detailing the misdeeds of police officers.

The majority of Utahns are against such blanket protections, according to a new Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll. In fact, 62 percent of those polled said disciplinary records should be in the public eye.

Just 31 percent said the records should be private. The Dan Jones & Associates poll was conducted Feb. 19-21 and has a margin of error, plus or minus, of 5 percent.

More here.

A Tough Look at the Utah Police Files Exemption

Amen, Amen:

Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank and police union President Tom Gallegos are tight.

Which explains how Gallegos can still be on the job after harassing two female co-workers - "I probably should not be alone in a room with you when you're on your knees," he told one - and sending porn from his city computer (a felony). Instead of firing Gallegos, Burbank has filled his personnel file with letters of reprimand.

Gallegos probably would rather not have the dirty details of his on-the-job sexual harassment training revealed. But even Chief Burbank couldn't help him.

West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars can. He's sponsoring legislation that would allow cops like Gallegos - with the complicity of police chiefs like Burbank - to keep their disciplinary records secret. Under the bill, which is backed by the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, officers would have to consent to release information about their bad acts.

Buttars' bill is part of lawmakers' annual chipping away at Utah's public records law. Rep. Mel Brown, R-Coalville, is sponsoring legislation that would allow government agencies to classify the minutes of meetings as "protected drafts." Orem Republican Sen. Margaret Dayton has carved out a special exemption allowing lawmakers to get "private, controlled or protected" information.

More here.

A Security Exemption Looms in Virginia

I like the lead of this story:

In the basement of a building between an IHOP and a car dealership sits the nexus of Virginia’s fight against terror.

There, people who need special clearances pass through layer after layer of security on their way to a conference room so secure no one can have a cell phone or a piece of electronic equipment inside. The door locks alone cost $4,000 apiece.

Most people know little about the Virginia Fusion Center. And if a bill quietly wending through the General Assembly becomes law, they’ll know even less.

The bill, coincidentally named HB1007, would exempt the center’s investigative and intelligence documentation from the state Freedom of Information Act and would shield its employees from subpoenas in civil lawsuits concerning criminal intelligence information or terrorism investigations.

Open government watchdogs decried the bill. They said it goes too far in giving additional furtive powers to a quasi-secret agency. They point to the measure as another cramp to personal freedoms in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, era....

The bill passed the House 98-1, and a Senate panel could hear it this week. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine supports the measure, according to a spokesman.

The Virginia Press Association and the Virginia Coalition for Open Government have lobbied against the bill. The Virginian-Pilot is a member of the press association and is a founding partner of the Coalition for Open Government....

Ginger Stanley, executive director of the Virginia Press Association, calls HB1007 “Big Brother at work.”

Stanley said it is understandable to restrict information about terror investigations but that blocking public access to records related to “criminal intelligence” – as the bill reads – is overbroad and could apply to anything.

That would “allow them to keep private every piece of information,” she said. “They need protection to a point, but they take it way beyond that.”

More here.

Bad Bill Department: Secret Police Records?

The state's largest police department and Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker are backing a controversial bill that would severely limit public access to the disciplinary records of police officers.

Police Chief Chris Burbank this week cast the effort as a way to put city cops on par with Salt Lake County officers who enjoy greater protection of disciplinary records. In what could be a litmus test for the new mayor on records-access issues, Becker said he is taking the chief's advice.

"On the advice of our police chief, we support it," said Helen Langan, a spokeswoman for Becker. "It's a sensible thing to do."

SB260, sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, would give police throughout the state the same exemption carved out for county officers: disciplinary charges against them would not be made public unless the officer appeals the sanction or agrees to open the records.

Public watchdog groups opposing the bill, now before a Senate committee, say it is a way to cloak information that should be available to taxpayers who support police departments.

"Just because the county officers have this secret police system doesn't mean we want to have a statewide police system of secrecy," said attorney Michael O'Brien, who represents the Utah Media Coalition, of which The Salt Lake Tribune is a member.

More here.

Concealed weapons exemption passes in VA...

The House of Delegates passed legislation today that would allow information about Virginians with permits to carry concealed handguns to be kept off limits to the public.

House Bill 982, sponsored by Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, was originally intended to exempt a state police database of permit-holders from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The bill was amended Thursday to allow circuit court clerks to deny public access to the information, and prohibit them from releasing anything more than the names of people who are granted permits.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 97-1 and now heads to the Senate.

Nutter filed the bill in response to a controversy sparked last year by The Roanoke Times, which posted a state police database of concealed carry permit holders on its Web site and published an editorial writer’s column encouraging readers to access the list. Widespread complaints prompted the newspaper to remove the data from its site.