|
Current Headlines
|
Frosty Landon: Virginia Law Needs Improvements |
|
|
Open Government: Va. FOI Law Thrives, But It Needs Improvements
By FROSTY LANDON
GUEST COLUMNIST, Richmond Times-Dispatch 3.12.06
There's one of those big construction-site signs on the grounds of the State Capitol these days, announcing the first major restoration and expansion of the Capitol in almost 100 years. Significantly, the sign heralding the $70-million project bears an important footnote. It reads "Owner: the People of Virginia."
PR or not, those words say loudly and clearly what is sometimes overlooked by government officials (and by citizens who sit out an election): All of us are, in fact, owners of our government. And all of us have a right to demand accessible and accountable government -- at the State Capitol, at a city hall, and, most especially, inside the Beltway.
Today marks the start of Sunshine Week, an annual observance co-sponsored by librarians, journalists, the League of Women Voters, and other access activists working to keep government open to its owners.
Open government is good policy. It's also good politics. Yet there are always some in government who give lip service to strong "sunshine laws," yet try to keep us in the dark when politically expedient.
Citizens, Press Force Disclosure
When a Chesterfield citizen recently discovered that $18,000 had been spent for the county administrator's questionable chartered flight, it was the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that led to the disclosure. When a Newport News newspaper revealed unscrutinized salary deals at Virginia's ports, it was FOIA, again, that led to the disclosure.
The FOI law is not perfect. Among its 135-plus discretionary exceptions are some that invite abuse:
* Closed-door discussions wrongly occur when there are vacancies on city councils, school boards, and boards of supervisors;
* Public officials' résumés are held to be privileged;
* Law enforcement's investigative reports remain permanently shut down; and
* "Proprietary-record" exceptions (never defined) cover a host of other sins.
These exemptions "grow like Topsy," added by simple majority vote of state legislators. Once placed in law, many of the exemptions tend to live forever.
Yet these loopholes don't begin to approach some that exist in other states. Virginia's policy is clear, even if some FOI exemptions are not.
As the FOIA's preamble states, "The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government."
When the FOIA is invoked, exemptions must be narrowly applied. Records must be produced within five days, with no questions asked about purpose or motive. If a seven-day extension is needed for compliance, it can be invoked just once; only a court can sanction greater delay.
If search and copying fees are imposed, they must be reasonable, limited to actual cost. If illegal discussions occur behind a closed door, an elected official is duty-bound to reveal the offense -- although some will lie unless and until such sessions are recorded for possible judicial review.
To foster FOIA compliance, the General Assembly six years ago created a 12-member Freedom of Information Advisory Council. Based in the legislature, its two-lawyer office provides authoritative and impartial rulings, ongoing training, and a process for reviewing problems at least on occasion.
Most recently, the FOIA Council helped craft a long-needed tightening of disclosure rules for so-called public-private partnerships. These "3P" alternatives to traditional procurement projects are increasingly used to cut red tape, encourage private-sector innovation, and, theoretically, cut construction costs. Unfortunately these deals got hammered out in secret. But thanks to a FOIA Council study, unanimous legislative approval, and the Governor's expected signature, that secrecy should lessen after July 1.
Assembly Actions
That was not the only significant open-government action by the 2006 General Assembly. Again acting in response to an obvious abuse, the Assembly closed the so-called 527s loophole that permitted millions of dollars in out-of-state political money to bankroll Virginia elections with no pre-election disclosure of donors' names. Again assuming the Governor's signature, that abuse will not recur -- although one should not underestimate the ability of a politician to find new ways to circumvent disclosure rules.
Alas, the 2006 House of Delegates fell into that very trap, all in the name of government efficiency. (I leave it to others to say if that's an oxymoron.) What was not defensible was the failure of the House Republican caucus to require recorded votes in its newly empowered subcommittees.
Until these key votes are routinely recorded, owners of government cannot know if in fact they're a "beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government."
Frosty Landon is executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, which he helped organize a decade ago. |
|
|
Most FOIA changes restrict access |
|
|
Virginia has enacted more than 30 changes to its Freedom of Information Act since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, with most of them limiting access to public information.
Of the 31 exemptions to records and meetings laws that were passed from 2002 to 2005, 20 limited access to information and 11 loosened restrictions, according to an analysis of state laws done for The Associated Press.
Changes tied to concerns about homeland security were approved in 2002 and 2003. After negotiations between homeland security officials and open-government advocates, the FOI law was amended to keep confidential "critical infrastructure" records submitted to government by utilities and private businesses. Supporters said the exemptions were needed to protect dams and nuclear plants, but opponents said the bill allowed too many exclusions.
In FOIA legislation related to [privacy] concerns, various measures were enacted to try to get Social Security numbers removed from public documents.
|
|
|
States steadily restricting info |
|
|
Analysis: States steadily restricting info
By ROBERT TANNER
AP NATIONAL WRITER
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.
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.
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 Reporters 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.
The law in Iowa requires that schools draft emergency response plans, but bars them from the public. In Indiana, legislators agreed to keep disciplinary actions against state employees secret - except when they are suspended, demoted or discharged.
In North Carolina, new advisory committees set up to examine medication errors in nursing homes keep their meetings and records confidential, though the medication error rates found in separate home inspections that exceed a higher, federal standard can be accessed through the federal government.
North Carolina, like other places, also took steps to open access, requiring local and state governments to more quickly provide details about government incentive packages to lure business.
Elsewhere, Oregon opened records on child abuse in cases involving a child who is killed or seriously hurt; South Carolina lawmakers required the governor to open his cabinet meetings; California voters approved an amendment to the state constitution requiring that the state's laws on open meetings and open records be broadly interpreted. After the amendment passed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made public his appointment calendar and those of two of his top aides.
Lately, privacy worries are starting to trump security fears.
"The great trend out there - that sweeps across any record - is privacy," said Charles Davis at the Freedom of Information Center in Missouri. "There's a push by government that every time Joe Citizen's name is mentioned in a government document, it's an inherent threat to Joe Citizen's privacy if that document is released."
Just this month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced a new government-wide effort to target identity theft, barring access to driver's licenses, phone records and Social Security numbers. No longer, the governor said, should there be a presumption that government information is public. "That's backwards," he said.
Open government advocates disagree. The way they see it, if Pawlenty is successful, information that used to be public in Minnesota will soon be unnecessarily locked away.
---
AP researcher John Parsons contributed to this story.
|
|
|
FOIA triggered charter-flight disclosure |
|
|
Citizen revealed Ramsey flight
Richmond Times-Dispatch 2.26.2006
Mention Brenda Stewart and watch Chesterfield County officials squirm.
Stewart, a Chesterfield resident and retired procurement analyst for the U.S. Defense Department, is the face behind last week's disclosure of County Administrator Lane B. Ramsey's $18,000-plus charter flight from Kansas the day before New Year's Eve.
In recent years, Stewart has become a familiar face to county officials, sparring with them at public meetings and digging quietly into how money is spent and how decisions are made.
On Feb. 12, using the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, the 62-year-old requested documents detailing Ramsey's flight. She leaked a copy of the check and invoice for the flight to the news media last week.
"I wasn't grandstanding," she said. "This wasn't about me. This is about the use of the taxpayers' money."
Ramsey on Thursday paid the county $18,247 for the cost of the flight plus interest. He also returned an $18,000 check, which a group of business leaders had presented to the county in hopes of squelching criticism from residents and others about the costs.
"I think he did the right thing -- a little belated, but nevertheless, it's always welcome," Stewart said.
Ramsey decided to charter the jet on Dec. 30 through Dominion Aviation Services, located at the county airport, after learning that then-board Chairman Edward B. Barber had been charged the day before with sex crimes against a minor.
Supervisor R.M. "Dickie" King Jr. boarded the jet in Chesterfield and flew to Kansas to accompany Ramsey to Virginia.
Stewart, criticized by some county officials for her persistence and perceived agenda, has repeatedly stressed she is not interested in publicity. She would not be photographed for this article.
In recent years, Stewart has filed freedom-of-information requests numerous times, according to school and county officials. School officials counted at least 20 requests, many for minutes of School Board meetings since August 2004. County government officials could not immediately quantify Stewart's requests.
"As a citizen, [Stewart] has asked for more than most," School Board Clerk Carol Timpano said.
Her latest discovery impressed Frosty Landon, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government. "She hit it on the nose."
"This is why it's there," Landon said of the state's open-government laws -- "for citizens to keep their government accessible and accountable."
King said he believes that Stewart's requests for information show that she and others have a political agenda.
"I believe Ms. Stewart [and] her complaints are not always about the process but the fact that we don't agree with what she says," he said.
Supervisor Art Warren, a Republican who has been critical of the flight, praised Stewart as a "smart woman who gets at the facts."
He said he knew nothing about the flight's cost and details until he received a Feb. 16 memo from administration officials detailing the information that Stewart had requested and saying it was going to be released to her the next day.
"Since this could potentially become a news story we wanted to give you advance notice," the memo says.
"Had it not been for her filing a Freedom of Information request, I'm not sure we -- meaning all five board members -- would have been told the cost of the flight because this was six weeks after the flight took place," Warren said.
Stewart sees herself as a community servant. She said she retired with "enough adequate resources" that she does not have to work.
"Individuals who are in that position," she said, "need to give something back to the community."
BY MEREDITH BONNY, WILL JONES AND HOLLY PRESTIDGE
|
|
|
Sunshine needed for interim appointments |
|
|
Keeping the supervisor interview process closed is a bad way to get 100-percent 'voter' turnout
Richland News Press editorial 01.31.2006
If the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors continues its plans to conceal interviews of eight prospects for the Southern Distric supervisor’s seat, at least that district could have one dubious distinction - 100 percent voter turnout from the "new" Southern District constituency.
Board Chairman Bill Rasnick continues to say that interviewing candidates in closed session - state law doesn’t give out-of-sight governmental meetings the dignity of the term ‘executive’ any more - is appropriate.
Apprpriate for whom? The Southern District’s voters or the Board of Supervisors?
Granted, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act allows elected boards the option to go into closed sessions to appoint interim replacements for members who have left the board for various reasons.
But just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Nothing in the FOIA requires elected boards to hold closed sessions for such matters. Three of the candidates for recommendation as Dan Bowling's replacement have said on the record that they would welcome a public interview before the Southern District's real voters. Why not take a cue from these gentlemen and let the public in on why these seven men and one woman are or aren't suited for office?
As for the Board of Supervisors' reasons for this secrecy, they haven't really offered any good ones except that the law allows them to do it.
If this were a special election, all the candidates' personal and professional cards would be on the public table.
And the Supervisors also haven't explained the legal and statutory process by which they decided on the interview process. Why not tell the public, at least, just when, where and by what recorded vote this closed-session interview process was approved?
The selection process for a Southern District supervisor candidate is becoming more questionable by the day, but there's still time to erase those questions and let the public back into their system of government.
How about it, board members? |
|
Read more...
|
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
| | Results 73 - 81 of 81 |
|
|
