Sunday, January 06, 2008

Discussions are open to citizens

Before last year's end, we registered our objections to closing meetings of the Washington County Economic Roundtable, at which allocations of slot machine revenue will be discussed. We relayed the position of counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association that the roundtable will function as a committee advising the county commissioners as well as our own view that secrecy undermines public trust in a process in which trust is essential.
There is another, more basic aspect to the story that deserves comment if only because it is a common misconception about the state Sunshine Law. It concerns the following statement attributed to County Commissioner Diana Irey:
"It is not a meeting where decisions will be made. There will only be discussions and evaluations of the proposals, so that would not fall under the provisions of the Sunshine Act."
The whole point of the Sunshine Act reform of 1987 was to open governmental deliberations to the public. The law contains the declaration that it is "the public policy of this Commonwealth to insure the right of its citizens to have notice of and the right to attend all meetings of agencies at which any agency business is discussed or acted upon ... (italics ours.)"
Prior to the law, school boards and municipal councils would begin their meetings behind closed doors, work out their differences and do nothing in public but rubber stamp decisions they had already made.
The citizens had no way of knowing why their officials were voting as they did, and in practice often did not even know what was being voted on.
The present law opens those deliberations to the public and applies not just to a quorum of public agencies but a quorum of their committees as well. The law provides only six carefully drawn reasons why a meeting could be closed. Deliberations that will not result in immediate decisions are not among them.
As the law states, "the right of the public to be present at all meetings of agencies and to witness the deliberation, policy formulation and decisionmaking of agencies is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process and that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society."
If there is any subject that could test public faith, it is in the distribution of gambling revenue. This seems to be the exact kind of thing the law was drawn to cover.
Copyright Observer Publishing Co.

Friday, January 04, 2008

New Government Openness Law Not All That Open


New Government Openness Law Not All That Open

By Kim Zetter

 
 

January 03, 2008 | 1:40:35 PM  


Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists points out that an Associated Press story that appeared in top newspapers recently -- including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal -- was wrong in its assessment of a new law that President Bush signed on December 31 that purports to promote more open government.

The Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007 is an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act (aka FOIA) that the media and public use to obtain government documents in order to conduct oversight of government activities.

According to the AP story, the new law creates more openness because it reverses orders made by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that advised government agencies to withhold information if they were uncertain how such information might affect national security. This was contrary to the standard under which FOIA was presumed to work in the past -- which was that information should be released unless there was known harm that could come from releasing it.

The AP piece states that the new law "amounts to a congressional pushback against the Bush administration's movement to greater secrecy since the terrorist attacks of 2001." The author of the piece, Ben Feller, notes in his article that "dozens of media outlets, including The Associated Press, supported the legislation."

But as Aftergood states in his Secrecy News blog, although the new law contains provisions that allow the media and public to better track the status of their FOIA requests and makes other positive changes toward faster response times to information requests, the law does not reverse Ashcroft's policy directive toward increased secrecy. In fact, Aftergood says, a provision that would have done that was in the original version of the bill when it was in the House, but it was removed before the bill was passed, thus ensuring that the new Open Government law continues to provide for less-than-open government.

 
 

Inserted from <http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/new-government.html>

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Following Commission recommendation, Yale Police Department may be subject to FOIA requests

Following Commission recommendation, YPD may be subject to FOIA requests

By Bharat Ayyar and Thomas Kaplan

Staff Reporter, Staff Reporter

Yale Daily News

Published: Thursday, January 3, 2008

 
 

Posted 12:55 a.m. Like other police departments empowered to make arrests, The Yale Police Department should be ordered to release its records to the public, the head of the state Freedom of Information Commission recommended late this December.

The proposed decision — which must be approved by the full commission next month — could provide an unfettered glimpse into the world of the YPD which, for years, has refused to provide access to its police reports and other documents on the grounds that it is not a public agency.

But the FOI hearing officer disagreed.

"It's the right decision," said Janet Perrotti, a Connecticut public defender who led the charge against the YPD, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "Not to be pompous … but clearly the facts and the law are on our side. And I'm just surprised that no one did it earlier."

The legal challenge stemmed from an incident last May when two Yale Police Department officers arrested a city teenager who was riding his bicycle on a public sidewalk near Yale last spring.

The 16-year-old was charged with breach of peace stemming from the incident. But when his description of the arrest differed from what police recalled, Perrotti — the first cousin of YPD Chief James Perrotti — requested copies of the personnel files of the two officers, suspecting misconduct in his arrest.

The University denied her Freedom of Information Act request, asserting that the YPD is a private, non-governmental entity, so Perrotti filed a complaint this fall with the state's FOI Commission, the Connecticut body that oversees FOIA requests in the state.

The proposed ruling is a step toward an important victory for students and journalists around the country who have criticized campus police departments in recent years for attempting to dodge public-records laws.

But their success in fighting the secrecy of campus police departments has been mixed. In New York, a court ruled in 2003 that Cornell University must make its arrest reports available for public inspection. But in a unanimous decision two years ago, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected a lawsuit filed by The Harvard Crimson seeking access to incident reports from the Harvard University Police Department.

Other recent legal efforts in Georgia and Virginia failed, too, but spurred the legislatures in both states to subsequently pass laws opening campus police records to the public.

In Connecticut, as per state statute, agencies are subject to FOIA if they perform some governmental function, receive a minimum level of government funding, are subject to a certain amount of government regulation or involvement and were created by the government.

In making her case to the FOI Commission in September, Perrotti argued that the YPD meets all of those criteria.

The YPD officers perform the same function as New Haven Police Department officers, she said, and possess the same powers of arrest. They are sworn in by the city, too, she added. The department also benefits from government funding and a tax break on all of its squad cars and on its headquarters, she said.

But University Deputy Secretary Martha Highsmith — who could not be reached for comment Wednesday — said last month that the YPD is not legally a public entity, although she said she was unfamiliar with the details of the FOIA dispute. As a private police department, the YPD is subject to different standards than public police departments, she said.

For example, public police forces can use polygraph tests on potential officers during the employment process, Highsmith said, but the YPD cannot.

"The Yale Police Department is a private law enforcement agency," she said. "We draw our powers through the city of New Haven, and we work with the Police Commission on some things, but basically we're a private entity whereas the New Haven Police Department is a public entity."

Officials from the Yale Police Department and Robert Langer, a partner in the prominent law firm of Wiggin & Dana, the University's lawyer in the case, could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

But in a recent interview with the New Haven Advocate, Langer contended that he YPD does not meet any of the four criteria to be a public entity.

Langer said the city of New Haven has no oversight over the Yale Police Department because of a 1992 agreement with the city that does not include any mention of the YPD falling under the regulations of the NHPD.

But Colleen Murphy, the executive director and general counsel for the FOI Commission, found that the YPD "exercises full police powers."

"It is concluded … that the police power given to the YPD, with its accompanying power to detain and arrest, is a fundamental governmental function that is capable of having a profound impact on private individuals," wrote Murphy, who heard the case in September and filed her seven-page proposed decision on Dec. 21.

As a "public agency," therefore, the YPD must abide by FOIA, Murphy said.

The five-member FOI Commission is expected to consider the proposed decision at a hearing in February. Yale officials will have one last chance to make their case at that hearing, which they will try to do, University Spokesman Tom Conroy said Wednesday.

But if the FOI Commission is not persuaded by their arguments and accepts Murphy's recommendation, the YPD would be forced to hand over the personnel files to Perrotti — and, potentially, to anyone else who requests them.

Conroy, meanwhile, declined to speculate on whether the University would appeal the FOI Commission's decision if its members decide to accept the proposed ruling next month.

"We'll take it one step at a time," he said.

 
 

Inserted from <http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/printarticle/22878>

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Recent US District Court of Columbia decisions by Judge Royce C. Lamberth in favour of FOI regarding White House visitor logs

 
 

Recent US District Court of Columbia decisions by Judge Royce C. Lamberth in favour of FOI regarding White House visitor logs:

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al

 
 

 
 

 
 

12/17/2007Civil Action No. 2006-1912

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al

Doc No. 44 (memorandum and opinion) PDF

by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

 
 

12/17/2007Civil Action No. 2006-0883

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Doc No. 79 (memorandum and opinion) PDF

by Judge Royce C. Lamberth

 
 

FOIA reform: Bloggers are journalists, too

By Nate Anderson | Published: December 20, 2007 - 02:01PM CT

It's not every day that a senator takes to the floor to defend "Internet blogs and other Web-based forms of media," but Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has done just that in his recent push to pass a Freedom of Information Act reform bill he has coauthored with two Republicans.

The Senate passed the OPEN Government Act last week (which builds on previous reform attempts), and the House followed suit on Tuesday of this week. The reforms in the bill make it easier for bloggers and other Internet journalists to make FOIA requests without paying fees, and they strengthen deadlines for agencies to respond to requests. Contractors who work for the federal government are now explicitly covered by FOIA rules, and a new FOIA Ombudsman will help resolve disputes outside of court. The legislation awaits President Bush's pen.

FOIA has always exempted journalists from paying fees to access government records (other citizens and companies are charged for search time and duplication of documents), but the rise of the Internet has made it more difficult for government agencies to decide if someone is a legitimate "journalist" or not.

The OPEN Government Act sets up what seems to be quite a reasonable standard for making these decisions: prior publication history. Writers need have no official affiliation; if they have a history of publishing pieces, on the Internet or elsewhere, they should be considered for a fee waiver. Even those without such a publication history may be eligible for a waiver if they offer a compelling explanation of how they will distribute the material in question to a broad audience.

The Act also seeks to stop a devious legal strategy where federal agencies bent on stonewalling the disclosure process could refuse to answer FOIA requests, force the requester to bring an expensive lawsuit against the agency, then release the requested documents just before a judicial decision came down. Because a court had not ruled against the agency, the requestor couldn't collect attorneys' fees. Under the new law, agencies would have to pay so long as the complainer had "substantially prevailed" in the case.

The Act is already being hailed by journalism organizations and digital civil liberties groups alike. "Passage of the FOIA bill will allow not only members of the press but all Americans to hold their government more accountable," said Clint Brewer, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. "In a time when First Amendment rights are under attack almost daily in this country, this bill is a major step to ensuring America has a free press and a government that is transparent and open."

The EFF, a group that has made good use of FOIA requests in the past, says that the legislation "isn't perfect" but that "it will take some steps towards streamlining the process and creating more accountability."


Inserted from <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071220-foia-reform-bloggers-are-journalists-too.html>