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.

Creepy, Scary FOI-Driven Story...

Ted Bridis of the Associated Press is an FOI warrior. Here is a story he did today that uses FOI to tell a spooky little tale:

It's the government's idea of a really bad day: Washington's Metro trains shut down. Seaport computers in New York go dark. Bloggers reveal locations of railcars with hazardous materials. Airport control towers are disrupted in Philadelphia and Chicago. Overseas, a mysterious liquid is found on London's subway.

And that's just for starters.

Those incidents were among dozens of detailed, mock disasters confronting officials rapid-fire in the U.S. government's biggest-ever "Cyber Storm" war game, according to hundreds of pages of heavily censored files obtained by The Associated Press. The Homeland Security Department ran the exercise to test the nation's hacker defenses, with help from the State Department, Pentagon, Justice Department, CIA, National Security Agency and others.

The laundry list of fictional catastrophes — which include hundreds of people on "No Fly" lists suddenly arriving at airport ticket counters — is significant because it suggests what kind of real-world trouble keeps the White House awake at night. Railway switches failed. Planes flew too close to the White House. Water utilities in Los Angeles were compromised.

Imagined villains include hackers, bloggers and even reporters. After mock electronic attacks overwhelmed computers at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, an unspecified "major news network" airing reports about the attackers refused to reveal its sources to the government. Other simulated reporters were duped into spreading "believable but misleading" information that worsened fallout by confusing the public and financial markets, according to the government's files...

More here.

PA Senate Unanimously Passes Major FOI Reforms!

A huge day for PA....congrats to the Pennsylvania Coalition for Open Government on this huge achievement!

The state Senate today unanimously approved a bill that vastly expands the public's access to government records.

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware) said that if the legislation becomes law, Pennsylvania would be elevated from having among the nation's worst open-records laws to likely having one of the best.

"At least we are in the position to make that claim," Pileggi said. "Before, it was inarguably one of the worst in the country."

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D., Greene) said the House leadership would review changes made by the Senate before determining whether it would vote on it in its current form. If the House amends the bill it would have to go back to the Senate for concurrence.

The bill, considered a cornerstone of government reform efforts underway in the legislature, had been stalled for months because of disagreements between the House and Senate.

The bill replaces Pennsylvania's antiquated Right-to-Know law, which placed the burden of proof on the individual or group seeking access to records. Under the current legislation, the burden of proof is shifted to the government agency or the legislature, which must make the case why it should not release the document.

In essence, the bill requires that all records be considered public unless specifically exempted under the law.

Those exemptions would include autopsy reports, investigative reports related to law enforcement, medical records, Social Security numbers, and home and personal cellular phone numbers.

Also exempted would be constituent letters to lawmakers, drafts of bills, employment applications, and grievance materials. Law enforcement agencies in counties or municipalities would make decisions regarding the availability of 911 tapes.

More here.

Times-Picyune FOIA Request to FEMA: 884 Days and Counting

From the Society of Environmental Journalists' excellent FOI newsletter:

Suppose there were a catastrophe and you needed information fast. Would you call FEMA?

If FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency)'s performance under Freedom of Information Act is any measure, the journalists and the public could have zero confidence in getting timely warnings. Asking FEMA for information, it seems, is still the equivalent of calling for a lead life preserver.

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of New Orleans in Sept. 2005, triple-Pulitzer-winning reporter Mark Schleifstein of the New Orleans Times-Picayune filed a FOIA request with FEMA asking for specific records about how FEMA had responded to the disaster. The original request was filed Oct. 5, 2005.

Now, some 884 days later, Schleifstein is still waiting for the information.

Schleifstein had asked for records on the activation of "Rapid Needs Assessment Teams" for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the reports from those teams about populations and areas affected and their recommendations of help needed, and records of resulting actions.

And he had asked for "expedited" handling of his request.

Schleifstein told FEMA a response was needed quickly because the situation was "life-threatening." Without adequate levee protection, New Orleans and other Gulf areas were vulnerable to a Katrina repeat — and they urgently needed to know what kind of preparedness and response to expect from FEMA.

FEMA put Schleifstein on hold.

A year later, they wrote him to see if he was still interested in getting the information he had asked for. Schleifstein wrote back, saying "YES" (in capitals).

Another year went by, and FEMA wrote him again, asking if he still wanted the information. Schleifstein answered "YES" again in a Jan. 29, 2008, letter, adding:

"It is now 884 days since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, flooding 80 percent of my community, killing more than 1,500 people. Last week, New Orleans Homeland Security Director Terry Ebbert, in an address to the American Meteorological Society, said he still has grave concerns about the ability of this nation's emergency preparedness preparations and their potential to respond to a Katrina repeat in New Orleans."

The Secret Police Will See You Now...

Rep. Bill Hinkle says a public-records bill he's sponsoring would help protect police officers and their families from retribution for doing their jobs.

But opponents say the proposal — the latest attempt to limit what is considered public information — is too broad, would cost too much to implement and isn't needed.

House Bill 2490 would exempt from disclosure personal information about a commissioned police officer or his or her family members. That would include home addresses, phone numbers, property and tax records and dates of birth.

State law already prohibits government agencies from releasing home addresses and phone numbers of employees — including police officers. But names, birth dates, salaries and job titles are generally available.

Under the bill, citizens could request the full name, year of birth and photograph of individual officers. The officers or their immediate supervisors would first be notified of the request and would be provided the name and city or county of the person requesting the information.

"We have a group of people in this country that protects the homes in our communities, and we're exposing them to a liability that is unfair," said Hinkle, R-Cle Elum.

The bill is opposed by the Coalition for Open Government and media organizations.

"My goal is to keep it from even getting a hearing," said Toby Nixon, president of the Coalition for Open Government, "because once it gets out in the wild, the law-enforcement community can put a lot of political pressure on the Legislature."

Rowland Thompson, a lobbyist for Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, said the bill would make it much harder for citizens to monitor police and learn about officers accused of wrongdoing.

"These are people who we give a lot of responsibility and trust to, and we allow them to move through the population armed with the ability to incarcerate people," Thompson said. "I mean, we trust them, but it isn't a blind trust."

More here.

Want to COver Our Student Gov Meetings? Then we'll shut down the presses!

Hey everybody! It's that rarest of First Amendment no-nos, the prior restraint.

The Montclarion, Montclair State University's student-run newspaper, was prevented from publishing its first issue of the semester, due to a Jan. 22 budget freeze by its parent, the Student Government Association (SGA).

SGA bookkeeper Pamela Mitchell contacted the publishing company, Wall, N.J.-based RFM Printing, to inform them of the funding suspension and to instruct them not to publish the Jan. 24 issue of the paper, or any subsequent issues, until further notice. The production coordinator who spoke to Mitchell recited notes she had from the conversation.

"It was very matter of fact," said the employee. "[I was told] do not print an issue until further notice."

The freeze was initiated through an undated letter addressed to Montclarion Editor-in-Chief Karl de Vries on Tuesday, Jan. 22, the first day of spring semester classes. The reasons cited were related to a legal counsel agreement between The Montclarion and its former attorney on Jan. 19, 2007.

Attorney Sal M. Anderton, who represented The Montclarion for nearly a year, was fired by SGA President Ron Chicken in December . Anderton advised the newspaper in its pursuit against the SGA for what The Montclarion maintains is a closed session practice in violation of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act.

The budget freeze letter, signed by Chicken and SGA Treasurer Melissa Revesz, claimed an improper legal service contract, a violational "expenditure of funds," and the denial of The Montclarion to submit the correspondences between the newspaper and the attorney.

The Montclarion's position is that the information is protected by attorney-client privilege. The paper will continue to refuse the request. Chicken requested the records verbally on Nov. 14, again on Dec. 5 and in a letter on Dec. 13.

Last year's SGA President and Treasurer approved the payment of Anderton's $5,000 retainer fee. The fee was drawn from the SGA's own budget, from a line previously designated and approved by the legislature as "Montclarion Legal Fees."

"Technically that's the contract," said Angelo Lilla, former SGA President, of the purchase requisite he signed approving the retainer fee. "It's a document with two signatures approving and showing proof that we understand and agree to the terms of payment."

Chicken established in December that The Montclarion would receive legal counsel and advice, if necessary, from SGA attorney Aaron Easley. The Montclarion must submit legal queries for Easley through Chicken and is not permitted to access him directly.

More here.

When the Requests Get Creepy...

Allan Parmelee has a lot of time on his hands - another 19 years, for having the cars of two lawyers firebombed. He's using it to dig up information about the people who sent him to prison, including judges and prosecutors, as well as pretty much every other public employee he's encountered in his legal odyssey.

But his hundreds of requests under the state's Public Records Act have become so numerous, and so creepy, that King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg has taken the extraordinary step of asking a judge not only to let his office ignore Parmelee's pending requests, but to bar him from filing any more with the prosecutor's office in the future. Superior Court Judge Glenna Hall is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in the case, which tests the limits of the state's disclosure law.

"I am a proponent of open government, and I am very familiar with the Public Records Act and its underlying philosophy," Satterberg wrote in a declaration. "I do not bring this petition lightly. However ... Allan Parmelee has a long history of using the Public Records Act to try and intimidate and harass my deputies and other criminal justice system employees."

Parmelee, whose criminal history also includes convictions for harassment and stalking, was convicted at his second trial in 2004 of first-degree arson in the firebombing of a vehicle belonging to his ex-wife's divorce lawyer in 1998, and of a vehicle belonging to a lawyer who represented his roommate's ex-girlfriend in 2002. His first trial ended in a mistrial because he was found to have personal information about the jurors, one of whom reported receiving a phone call from him.

While in prison, he has sought records - such as addresses, photos, pay, schedules, professional histories and birthdates - of thousands of Washington State Patrol troopers and state Department of Corrections staff, Satterberg wrote in court papers. Several requests since last October seek information about everyone in Satterberg's office, and in particular photos and personnel records of three deputy prosecutors who handled his cases. He's also seeking video or other electronic images of two Superior Court judges - including Julie Spector, who sentenced him to 24 years - and two court commissioners.

In addition, he has asked the state attorney general's office for records including "working hours, schedules ... (and) photographs in color" of eight current and former assistant attorneys general. In a phone conversation, Parmelee told one, Brian Maxsey, that he might pay a visit to his house; another, Sara Olson, received a letter from Parmelee that referenced the firebombings and said she was acting "so unprofessionally (as) to invite some similar response."

The state has won previous orders against disclosing specific information to Parmelee, such as photographs of Corrections staff, but for an agency to seek to bar someone from exercising his rights under the Public Records Act is "extraordinary," said Seattle open-government lawyer Michele Earl-Hubbard.

More here.

In Texas, Where the Cops Are Hired on the Basis of...well...

Twenty years ago, police unions in Texas converged on the Capitol with a mission.

They found friendly legislators to push a bill that appeared to address only a mundane administrative matter about personnel record-keeping. It quickly passed in 1987 with little public notice.

But buried inside were provisions that ever since have kept taxpayers in the dark about some of the most important management practices of public institutions in Texas.

The law forever closed to the public whole sections of city personnel files.

Because of this change, known as Section 143.089 of the Local Government Code, most Texas taxpayers — with the exception of Dallas — never can know how their police departments carry out the vital functions of vetting and evaluating recruits. They also can't readily know how thoroughly officers accused of misconduct are investigated.

Through the years, 143.089 has impeded the public from exploring these practices.

Emblematic of the problem is the case of former Police Officer Joseph Anthony Evans who, the San Antonio Express-News has learned, was hired in 1994 despite a checkered past that disqualified him from being a cop. After 12 years on the force, Evans faces sentencing Wednesday for allowing his live-in girlfriend to peddle methamphetamines.

Documents in his personnel file, normally cloaked by the law, became public while he was being prosecuted. The city, citing the law, refused to release to the Express-News similar documents that would show whether other officers were hired despite a cloud.

More here. And the main story, here, is a GREAT example of why FOI matters so much and why cutting off access to this kind of stuff can be really dangerous.

Why Access Matters...

If you can't get access to the 911 calls -- and you can't in many, if not most, states -- then citizens have no way short of taking their word for it to determine whether the system works:

Under the law governing the 911 enhanced emergency call system, only the police chief here will be able to listen to two calls from people who complained they were handled inefficiently by Androscoggin County dispatchers.

Sheriff Guy Desjardins plans meet with police Chief Ernest Steward Jr. prior to the next selectmen's meeting on Monday, Feb. 4, and will then meet with selectmen to answer questions, Desjardins said Thursday.

He and Steward plan to have reports ready then.

Desjardins defended his dispatchers' handling of the calls in question after listening to the audio tapes of two separate incidents earlier this month.

In one case, the time of arrival of an ambulance is in dispute. Desjardins says a person can be heard on the tape answering a dispatcher's question affirmatively when asked if the ambulance had arrived. That response time was within 4½ minutes.

The person who made the complaint, Richard Korhonen of Livermore Falls, said it took more than 15 minutes and he said the dispatcher was not listening.

Korhonen was one of two people to voice concern to selectmen during a board meeting on Jan. 22.

Selectmen asked Town Manager Martin Puckett and Steward to look into the complaints.

Desjardins initially thought he could make copies of the calls and bring them up so Puckett and Steward could listen to them.

He later learned that the audio recordings are not considered public in Maine, Desjardins said. That includes any medical information about a person receiving emergency services through the E911 system

However, Steward, as a law enforcement officer, would be able to review the calls in question with the sheriff, Desjardins said.

More here.

PA News...

State lawmakers are gearing up to put open-records legislation — a major unresolved issue — behind them next week.

Observers say there's a realistic chance the Legislature will approve a measure bringing Pennsylvania's 1957 open records statute into the 21st century by week's end. The bill declares that state, county and municipal government records are considered public unless stated otherwise and puts the burden of proof on a government to show why a record should not be made public.

"There's a realistic potential it can get to the governor's desk," said Deborah Musselman, lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, which supports the legislation.

The House and Senate are nearing the endgame in their yearlong maneuvering over the issue. Key lawmakers want a resolution before Harrisburg's attention turns to the state budget. That starts shortly with Gov. Ed Rendell's Feb. 5 budget address. Symbolically, open-records action would be well received at PNA's annual government affairs conference Wednesday and Thursday. Legislative leaders participate in conference panel discussions.

"Open records will be our main priority next week," said Eric Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware. "Hope to get it all the way done and send it to the governor."

The House and Senate passed separate bills in the fall. The Senate will add a compromise amendment and send it to the House.

More here.

Virginia Donor Privacy Bill Takes a Hit...

The University of Virginia’s desire to conceal the identities of its financial donors who wish to stay anonymous hit a snag Thursday.

Lawmakers in a House of Delegates subcommittee declined to endorse a bill that would allow UVa to exempt anonymous donors’ identities from Virginia’s open records law. UVa officials assert that if they cannot promise that certain donors’ names will be hidden from the public, those potential benefactors will choose not to open their checkbooks.

“I want to allow UVa to do everything it says it needs to do to raise money for its endowment,” said Del. Glenn Oder, R-Newport News, who introduced the bill at UVa’s request. Sen. R. Edward Houck, R-Spotsylvania, has filed an identical version of the bill in the Senate.

Citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest, the House subcommittee asked UVa to return next week with amendments to the bill that would ensure anonymous donors do not gain an unfair advantage in real estate deals, procurement or admissions.

“There are some very unsavory people out there who have a lot of money and who might want to give donations,” said Del. Terrie L. Suit, R-Virginia Beach. “It gives me pause that they could give anonymously.”

The bill would do more than just shield the names of UVa’s anonymous contributors. It would also exempt from the Freedom of Information Act a long list of personal information about more than 450,000 potential donors - including their financial worth, date of birth, marital status and Social Security numbers - that the university keeps in a vast computer database.

More here.

Ah, The Irony...

The BBC today successfully fended off a Court of Appeal bid to force it to make public the Balen report, an internal review of its reporting in the Middle East.

Commercial solicitor Steven Sugar, of Putney, London, has waged a two-year battle arguing that the report should be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

He claimed it should be published in the light of allegations that the BBC has shown bias against Israel. His claim was backed by the Information Tribunal, but the High Court allowed an appeal by the BBC and ruled that the case fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

My favorite line:

The BBC maintains that it is vital for independent journalism that internal staff debates on news coverage should not be open to public scrutiny.

EPA Chief Uses White Duct Tape for Redaction...

This amazing sequence on Capitol Hill yesterday is a vivid demonstration of just how reflexive secrecy is, and how little we as citizens know about what goes on in our names...

The head of the EPA stood firm Thursday against a chorus of congressional criticism over his refusal to allow California and more than a dozen other states to impose greenhouse gas reductions on cars and trucks.

"I am bound by the criteria in the Clean Air Act, not people's opinions," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson testified to the Senate's environmental panel. It was his first congressional appearance since issuing the controversial waiver denial last month.

"The Clean Air Act does not require me to rubberstamp waiver decisions," Johnson said. "It was my conclusion that California didn't meet the criteria, or at least all of the criteria."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee chair, led committee Democrats in assailing Johnson's conclusion.

"You're going against your own agency's mission and you're fulfilling the mission of some special interests," she chided him.

Who's right? We don't know, because the EPA isn't telling, even though several staffers have been quoted in news stories saying that they all concluded that California met every criteria for a waiver.

We don't know because the EPA is using duct tape on its records...

Here is Boxer's take:

Colleagues, this is the tape, this is the tape that was put over — finally the administration had a way to use duct tape. This administration, this is what they did to us. They put this white tape over the documents and staff had to stand here. It’s just unbelievable. […]

I mean what a waste of our time. This isn’t national security. This isn’t classified information, colleagues. This is information the people deserve to have. And this is not the way we should run the greatest government in the world. It does not befit us. So that’s why I’m worked up about it and think we have been treated in a very shabby way.

Yesterday, Boxer released excerpts from an October presentation, revealing that Johnson had ignored the advice of EPA staff who were in favor of granting California the waiver. The excerpts came out after Boxer’s staff removed the duct tape from the documents and transcribed handwritten notes, under the supervision of EPA staffers.

The good news? Looks like the administration finally found a use for its duct tape.

FOI At Work: Boy Left Sleeping on Bus...

A young boy was caught on tape being left on a school bus as his classmates headed off to class.

The incident was captured on the bus's security camera, and 24 Hour News 8 obtained the tape via the Freedom of Information Act.

It was January 16 when the seventh grade student was on his way to Lakeshore Middle School in Grand Haven. The bus pulled up to the school and the other kids on the bus got off. However, the boy didn't as he fell asleep and the bus driver never noticed.

The driver then traveled to the bus garage where she can been seen on the videotape leaving the bus without checking to make sure it was empty.

She returned to the bus 20 minutes later to pick up more kids. The boy then woke up but didn't say anything. She doesn't notice him until he came up front when the bus made its first stop.

More here.

I'd Want To Exempt That Bill, Too....

Monterey County paid at least $435,000 for attorneys it hired to help with federal voting-rights lawsuits over two controversial land-use ballot measures that eventually went before voters in June.

Spending for the attorneys was gleaned from some 200 pages of documents released by county officials to a government watchdog group in the past week. Open Monterey Project officials were seeking the billing documents since spring 2007 under the state Public Records Act.

"The issue is transparency and accountability," said Michael Stamp, attorney for the group. Stamp provided the spending estimate after reviewing billing documents, and said it would likely reach $445,000.

The group filed suit in May 2007 to obtain the outside-attorney billing records. But the county released documents with payment amounts blacked out.

County officials contended that premature public release of the records could cost the county more money by revealing its legal tactics and financial commitment in the cases. The county took the position that the billing records were exempt from public disclosure because they were part of pending litigation.

More here.

Nice Work By Washington Coalition...

OLYMPIA -- Washington state residents are on the verge of losing their constitutionally granted right to know what goes on in local governments, an open-government activist says.

Former state Rep. Toby Nixon, president of the Washington State Coalition for Open Government, said he hopes the Legislature will take action this year to protect that right.

"Without access to information about what the government is doing, we lose control," Nixon said. "Whoever has the most knowledge has the most power."

The nonprofit group hopes that lawmakers during this legislative session will restrict the use of attorney-client privilege, protect public access to government workers' birth dates and push for recording of closed government meetings.

More here.

Uh-oh...

From Rebecca Carr's excellent secrecy blog:

Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, oppose the administration moving funding for an ombudsman to oversee disputes over the Freedom of Information Act from the National Archives and Records Administration.

That was a centerpiece of the legislation sponsored by Cornyn and Leahy that President Bush signed into law last month after it overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. The law called for funding the Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives so that it would provide independent oversight of requests for government records made under the act.

“Such a move is not only contrary to the express intent of the Congress, but it is also contrary to the very purpose of this legislation — to ensure the timely and fair resolution of American’s FOIA requests,” Leahy said in a little-noticed floor speech on Wednesday.

Given its “abysmal record on FOIA compliance” over the past seven years, Leahy said he hoped the administration would reconsider its “unsound” decision on grounds it goes against what Congress intended.

In Wisconsin, Two Sets of Books?

From an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

"When it comes to limiting the public's access to records in Wisconsin, it's a bipartisan effort.

Last summer, Democratic state Reps. Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Fred Kessler of Milwaukee proposed shutting off access to the state's online court records to most members of the public. Only court officials, law enforcement personnel, attorneys and journalists would have had unlimited access to the Consolidated Court Automation Programs Web site.

This winter, it's Republican state Rep. Robin Vos of Racine and Democrat state Sen. Julie Lassa of Stevens Point who want to limit access to the Web site by removing certain cases from the electronic record. Their effort is just as well-intentioned as the effort last summer - and just as wrongheaded.

Companion proposals by Vos and Lassa would have state officials remove cases or charges involving a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor from the Web site within 90 days after being notified that the case or charge has been dismissed, the defendant has been found not guilty of all of the charges or the case or charge has been overturned on appeal and dismissed. In the case of felonies, the case or charge would be removed within 120 days after officials had been notified that one of the above had happened.

As Peter Fox of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association put it in an e-mail, the proposals are poor public policy. "For one thing, the WCCA site is intended to reflect the actual record of Wisconsin courts, not excerpts thereof," he wrote. "Essentially, this proposal would create two 'sets of books.' "

More here.

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.

The Presidential Records Act Hold Just Keeps On...

This, from the National Security Archive, is simply maddening:

Senator Sessions Places Hold on Presidential Records Bill
January 23rd, 2008

In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. “The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) would nullify the Bush executive order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

On January 22, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) to the floor under the Senate’s unanimous consent rule that allows non-controversial bills to be considered on an expedited basis. However, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) became the latest Republican senator to publicly put a hold on the bill and blocked floor consideration.

Last September, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) blocked a vote in the Senate on the bill, preventing floor action throughout the fall. However, on December 18, 2007, without explanation, Senator Bunning suddenly lifted his hold. The next day, Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) requested that the bill be passed. However, an anonymous Senator placed a secret hold on the bill.

Since the White House has not rescinded its threat to veto the bill, it is reasonable to assume that Senator Sessions is holding up the bill at the behest of the Administration. Senator Sessions gave no explanation on the floor as to why he was blocking the consideration of the presidential records bill.

Read more here.

And in case you missed it, here is yours truly, mad as &^&# even before this latest outrage.