State Freedom of Information laws are in the limelight again. This time from Minnesota. The state's proposed revision's on FOIA have bloggers writing about the importance of accessing government data before a crisis happens. Charles Leck offers his view on how the state's proposal on what constitutes as public data may affect access to information in Minnesota.  He was also invited to attend a meeting (happening today) about the revisions and will give us an update. You can read his blog at ad astra.

Many ordinary citizens, like I, don’t really understand the importance of accessibility to public documents and information; we don’t understand, that is, until, in a crisis, we really need to get our hands on information squirreled away in the dungeon-like depths of government archives.

There is some rumbling over in the State Legislature about revising or altering one of Minnesota’s most important laws, the Data Practices Act – or the Freedom of Information Act (FIOA). That's cause for concern and it should make many of us sit up and take notice. I don’t think we should allow any changes that would make securing public information any more difficult than it all ready is.

Currently, this process of securing government data information goes through the Information Policy Analysis Division (with Apple’s forgiveness, it’s known as IPAD). The current director of that division of state government is Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske. The operation falls under the state’s Department of Administration.

Current state law defines Government Data as: “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.”

Though the act does not require the data to be maintained in a particular form or format, it is required that the data be “easily accessible for convenient use.” (Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1)

FOIA requests shouldn’t be seen as a political tool of either the right or the left or, for that matter, the center. They come from everywhere and they are often viewed (and sometimes correctly) as threatening and as attempts to censor.

However, our ability to get at important information in government files is crucial to the process of Democracy – and crucial to the process of protecting and maintaining our rights as free citizens. To repeat myself, the last thing we want are changes to our current law that would make that process more difficult for Joe Blow citizens.

IPAD appears to be pushing for some changes, however, and they argue that the changes are necessary in light of recent budget cuts aimed at “streamlining government operations.”

RED FLAG! RED FLAG! Some of the proposals that IPAD is floating around the State Legislature might redefine what is to be regarded as public data and also changes the procedures that would be followed in applying for and securing such data. Naturally, IPAD argues that the procedures would create a more precisely defined law and make the procedures more efficient.

I’d want to make sure “if I was you” (as my old man used to say). And, if I were you and you live in Minnesota, I’d suggest you start communicating with your State Representative and State Senator right now and ask them to be wary of any changes that might make the procedure of securing public information more complicated. I’m going to send a draft of this blog on to both State Representative Steve Smith and State Senator Gen Olson, my representatives over at the capitol.

It’s already too difficult to secure information. The popular, veteran, and now retired newsman, Don Shelby, wrote in a MinnPost column last April that he “had a career batting average of about .150” on his FOIA filings. “Most of what I wanted to get at, I was told, ‘was none of my business.”

In case you don’t know what a 150 batting average is, it means you have success 1.5 out of every 20 times you come to bat. That’s not very good in one’s attempt to secure information that should be considered public. And, Shelby is not just an ordinary citizen like I am. He’s very familiar with the ins and outs of the current law and its procedures. He also had staff available to wait out the delays that IPAD can create for an applicant.

We simply should not consider changes that would diminish even more the access that is granted to public information. In fact, we ought to be going the other way with FOIA and making access less complicated.

Beyer-Kropuenske claims that IPAD is seeking a public discussion about the policy proposals – proposals, she says, that aren't even written into a proposed bill yet. Nevertheless, she calls the draft that is now circulating, according to Politics in Minnesota (1), a “preliminary proposal that is likely to be introduced this session.”

The IPAD Director is particularly interested in a variety of stakeholders (League of Minnesota Cities and Minnesota Coalition on Government Information). An open meeting was held in December and organizations like the Minnesota Newspaper Association had a representative there. It’s sad, however, that ordinary guys don’t get information about the meeting and we can’t easily get our hands on a copy of the proposed changes.

Even Common Cause of Minnesota, an organization I consider primary in representing my own interests in such matters, heard about the meeting after-the-fact.

A red flag, as far as I’m concerned (having not seen the document) is that a former IPAD director is concerned about it. Donald Gemberling was IPAD’s director for a very long period of time and he now serves as a spokesman and treasurer for the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MnCOGI). He alerts us to the fact that the government, under the proposal, could sit on a public data request for six months under certain circumstances.

The proposal also calls for the removal of elected officials from the personnel section of the data law. Currently rules regarding how state legislators and senators should be treated have been up to each body. That, I think, makes them much more accountable to the general public in terms of how they define themselves. A blanket change in the law that defines legislators as “private” would not be wise at all.

At this point, I’m very concerned about just who the director of IPAD considers stakeholders in this matter. There should be many more organizations included in her list and I think members of the press should be included in notices about such “open” meetings. I’d jump at the chance to be included myself. And, I have sent an email to IPAD requesting a copy of the proposals that have been made available to others  that Beyer-Kropuenske considers “stakeholders.” (see copy below)

(1)   Horwath, Justin: IPAD floats proposed changes to public information law [Politics in Minnesota, 13 January 2012]

IPAD Policy Bill Overview

The Department of Justice’s recently proposed changes for the way it executes Freedom of Information Act requests have inspired a flurry of media attention from various news outlets and criticism from government watchdogs . The groups criticizing the DOJ, which includes the Sunlight Foundation, are concerned that the new rules are too restrictive and threaten the federal law’s usefulness and fairness to the regular citizens and journalists it is meant to serve.

‘Back to the Source' takes a news article that makes good use of data and investigative techniques and tries to determine whether the underlying data that made the piece possible is publicly available. If you’d like to know where the data behind a particular piece can be found, please feel free to send us an email at mbuck@sunlightfoundation.com.

Since the last time we wrote about the DOJ's newly proposed FOIA regulations, as part of signing on to EPIC's comments on the proposed rule, not a whole lot has changed.

The DOJ sent a letter to respond to Congressional concerns about their lying about the existence of records.  The letter hardly paints a clear picture, but basically says that the DOJ will withdraw a section of the proposed regulations, but that their conduct won't change, and that they'll continue to mislead requesters about whether records exist or not.

Unmentioned in the letter, however, are all the steps backward on FOIA that the DOJ is proposing in their rules. In a package completely at odds with President Obama and Attorney General Holder's public FOIA rhetoric, the new DOJ rules throw up new roadblocks and hurdles to requesters, and generally make it easier to deny requests. One has to wonder what possible motivation DOJ has for forcing elementary schools to pay for FOIA requests, where they used to qualify for fee waivers. Have elementary school students' FOI requests become a burden?

There is now a growing consensus among open government groups about the problematic aspects of the pending FOIA regulations.  While a broader consensus view on the proposed regs has been somewhat slow in developing, that lies in part because it's so difficult to track down the changes to the regulations.  They were published in the Federal Register, but a ten page wall of text isn't easy to interpret for nuanced single word changes that may end up having enormous consequences.  After repeated tries, we've managed to create a side by side redlined version of the new regulations, to help illuminate the differences.  (To be more precise, Daniel Schuman did, using a Word process I still can't emulate.)

In just one example, the new regulations change this:

Records will not be disposed of while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

...to this:

Records that are identified as responsive to a request will not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

The difference is minor, but important.  The new regulations permit records to be disposed of as long as they haven't been affirmatively "identified as responsive." Ill-intentioned FOIA officers would face a new choice when confronted with an inconvenient request: attempt to identify new records, or perhaps just destroy them, in order to avoid identifying any responsive records.

A similar pattern repeats itself throughout the proposed rules. Requesters "must" address requests to the appropriate department. Insufficient requester detail becomes grounds for dismissing a request. News stories can no longer be used to justify the urgency of a request. Businesses are no longer required to affirmatively justify the withholding of trade secrets. Media requester status is bestowed based on the "intended use" and must be re-established for each request.

It's very difficult to interpret many of these changes as reflecting anything other than intending to empower obfuscation, and take the teeth out of FOIA.  Beyond the concerns over lying about the existence of records, DOJ's proposed regulations cause doubt of their dedication to enforcing the law, and appear instead to be an attempt to undermine it.

Obama's Department of Justice has proposed a new set of rules for how the agency fills Freedom of Information Act Requests. If adopted, the rules will be a huge step back for transparency. They're worse than you think. The DOJ apparently wants to:

• deny requests that aren't addressed to precisely the correct department (16.3 (a))
• summarily dismiss requests if they deem the wording too vague (16.3 (c))
• automatically apply exclusions to FOIA whenever it can (16.4 (a))
• be able to hide what part of the agency is responsible for filling requests (16.4 (e))
• reset their deadlines for responses any time they refer requests among departments (16.5 (a))
• make it more difficult for requests to be deemed urgent (16.5 (e))
• insulate department heads from having to stand by denials (16.6 (d)) (see update)
• lie, and claim records do not exist, when they do (16.6 (f))
• remove the ability for the courts to oversee how DOJ applies some exclusions (16.6 (f))
• make it easier for businesses to declare that information is a trade secret (16.7)
• be able to destroy records that might be responsive to FOIA requests (16.9)
• ignore your request for information to be given in a specified format (16.9(a)(3))
• disqualify most schools from getting FOIA fees waived (16.9(a)(4))
• exclude new media from getting fees waived (16.10(a)(6))
• make it easier to deny fee waivers (16.10(k)(2)(iii))

Are the PR flacks of the Obama administration against government transparency? If not, then why have some instituted media policies that effectively gag federal scientists, sometimes preventing them from informing the public via news media about federal scientific research, data and policies? (I suspect there are many government flacks who are frustrated by these policies, but must enforce them as part of their jobs.)

This week, Sunlight staff shared and discussed a damning article in the Columbia Journalism Review about a disturbing trend: federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are establishing guidelines for interacting with the press that subvert the role of their public affairs departments. My counterparts within government are now less likely to help reporters understand scientific data; instead, they serve as gatekeepers whose primary role seems to be to thwart the public’s right to know.

At first, I thought my co-workers at Sunlight reacted with a knee-jerk disdain for public relations work because the guidelines route press calls through a centralized communications team instead of letting journalists dial government scientists directly. But, reading the CJR report, which is informed by a survey of science, health and environmental journalists conducted by CJR and ProPublica, I realized these policies aren’t about ensuring consistency of message (unless you count silence as a message) and efficiency. They were about censorship.

It’s ironic that such policies stem from the White House’s efforts to ensure scientific integrity and public communication. This memo [PDF link, which is frustratingly an image PDF] states that such policies should allow for “openness and transparency with the media and the American people.”

But that’s not what’s happening, and that’s a shame as it tarnishes the reputation of other sound public relations professionals. (There are many of us, even in DC!) There's something to be said for having a good public affairs office that routes inquiries so that the agency is coordinating its messaging for accuracy and consistency. That's what we do here at Sunlight. Sure, there may be times when a reporter gets through to our spokespeople directly, who grant the interview and then tell my team about it. But for the most part, I try to ensure Sunlight’s Communications team is the first line of contact with reporters (and others), so that we can figure out who's the right person to help, what pertinent projects/blog posts we can promote to provide better context and, finally, make sure the interview happens on time. We also keep track of press inquiries to spot trends in what topics are gaining popularity (sometimes prompting us to coordinate research and post relevant updates to our blogs) and keep on top of who's interested in specific topics (so we can pitch to them in the future).

This is not the same thing as what CJR describes is happening now in the public affairs departmemts in agencies like HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Drug Administration. And, as these are new media relations policies, they’re not a sign of bureaucratic business as usual. For example, CJR describes the obstructionism Felice Freyer, who chairs the Association of Health Care Journalists’ Right to Know Committee, encountered in trying to get an interview for an article in The Providence Journal, where she has covered the medical beat since 1989:

Unsure which press officer to approach, she filled out the “Timely Response E-mail Form” on the agency’s website. Several hours passed with no response, so she called and spoke with a press officer. He suggested that Freyer e-mail her questions to him, which she did. Nothing. When she called again two days later, the press officer said he was waiting for a response from his superiors. He suggested that she resubmit her questions for a third time. She did, to no effect. Several more days passed and she sent yet another e-mail asking if she could expect answers, and if not, why. “At this point, all we can say is that the FDA is continuing to look into these cases,” the press officer replied.

[There’s more I could excerpt, but I highly encourage you to read the full CJR article instead.]

Sunlight’s Reporting Group journalists also often face the same deliberate impediments by administration public affairs officials. Just as the reporters surveyed in the CJR piece, they’re left hanging when requesting interviews, and after weeks (or even months!) of persistence, told they can only cite government officials on background. Citing unnamed sources hurts the credibility of journalism, which can be further compromised if later challenged to prove the truth of such unattributed statements. Likewise, Sunlight's own experiences in trying to obtain government information using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reinforce the notion that the Obama administration has not lived up to its promise to be more transparent. So much for our ability to report and shine a light on the government in a timely fashion. (This also frustrates yours truly, who sees news cycles come and go, knowing we have a good analysis to inform the public debate that can’t be published and pitched because we can’t get the information we need out of the government.)

President Obama won the hearts and minds of many American voters with promises to open up government. His administration made initial strides to deliver on that promise, establishing policies like the Open Government Directive and making government data available online for anyone to access on Data.gov. The thing is, you can’t just report on data in a vacuum. It needs to be explained and contextualized by experts. And those experts are being muzzled by policies that reek of obstructionism and an outdated culture. These policies likely prevent the administration’s PR flacks from helping to get the word out on news that would even make the administration look good. It’s as if the public affairs departments have forgotten they serve the public interest -- let’s not forget it’s our taxes that pay for their salaries.

We can’t stand for this. If you’re in DC, I encourage you to RSVP right now for an event this coming Monday at the National Press Club that will focus on this precise issue organized by the National Press Club, CJR, the Society for Environmental Journalists, Association of Health Care Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. And, if you’re a journalist, I urge you to cover this topic. Besides the groups listed above, there are many others working to ensure scientific integrity like the Union of Concerned Scientists and government transparency. Our media policy is simple: contact our Communications Manager Liz Bartolomeo or me (gab at sunlightfoundation dot com). We pick up our phones and reply to emails promptly, promise!

This week we continue our coverage of the rollbacks of Illinois's Freedom of Information law with a guest post from Emily Miller. Miller is the Policy and Government Affairs Coordinator at the Better Government Association, a non-profit, non-partisan government watchdog group based in Illinois that has been closely following this issue.

*** In 2010, during a whirlwind of post-Blagojevich “ethics reform,” the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) went through a dramatic rewrite that strengthened the rights of citizens to access information about their government. From tightening response deadlines and eliminating loopholes, to creating a “public access counselor” in the office of the Illinois attorney general, the new law made accessing information about Illinois government easier than ever.

But the honeymoon didn’t last long. Lawmakers began chipping away at the new FOIA protections almost as soon as the law went into effect. This year’s legislative session saw at least 12 different anti-FOIA bills move through the Illinois General Assembly.

The good news is that, by being involved in negotiations with key lawmakers and staffers, the Better Government Association (BGA) and other advocates stopped some of the more absurd FOIA backsliding suggested during the legislative session, including a provision that would have allowed public school districts to wait all summer until students returned in the fall before responding to a citizen’s FOIA request.

But now, under a new law signed last week by Gov. Pat Quinn, Illinois added yet another barrier to access by creating a new class of citizen—the “recurrent requester”—who must wait longer to receive documents requested from public bodies.

Referred to as “vexatious requesters” in earlier versions of the legislation, recurrent requesters are citizens who make more than 50 FOIA requests in one year, 15 in 30 days or seven in seven days.

Once citizens are labeled a recurrent requester—a label they cannot appeal—it’s harder for them to access public information for an entire year. The 2010 law gave public bodies five business days to respond to a request for public information, or 10 days if they get an extension. Under the new law, public bodies can take 21 days to give a recurrent requester an estimate as to when he or she might get the requested documents, and it requires no set timeline by which a public body must respond.

The lack of a set time frame for reply could leave citizen watchdogs without access to time-sensitive information that’s needed to keep a close watch on what’s behind fast-changing or shifting government decisions or plans.

Illinois should be moving toward increased openness and transparency, not away from it. Instead of focusing on ways to punish “recurrent requesters,” public bodies should be focusing on how to make public information more accessible through the Web. If more basic public information, such as meeting minutes and contracts, was available online, citizens wouldn’t need to file as many FOIAs.

Unfortunately, we know this is not the end of the fight to protect FOIA. Without a doubt, lawmakers will continue to try and chip away at FOIA.

The BGA remains committed to shining a light on government, and we will continue to fight for the public’s right to do the same.

Emily Miller is the Policy and Government Affairs Coordinator at the Better Government Association (www.bettergov.org), a non-profit non-partisan government watchdog group in Illinois. The BGA Think Tank blog follows BGA policy work, including FOIA. Emily Miller can be found on Twitter at @EJMill.

Several months ago, we noticed a trend in states rolling back transparency legislation. Disturbed, we put up a campaign to call attention to it. In the months since then, here's an update:

In Utah, Governor Gary Herbert made a call to repeal and replace HB477 and a working group comprising of journalists, the public and representatives from the governor's office met to offer recommendations basing on 36 policy questions. The recommendations are currently being reviewed by the governor's office. Meanwhile, in Maine, Governor Paul Lepage put on hold his plans to establish a business advisory council whose activities would be exempt from the state's Freedom of Access Act.

But Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker went back on his promise of not keeping the public in the dark about their government.

AND we started learning about problems that were even more widespread. Fresh on the transparency rollback list are Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana and Washington State. This reinforces our desire to see even more transparency from our governors.

This week, we'll be delivering the "Tell your governor to support open government" letter with your signatures to the National Governors Association to make sure every governor knows that transparency isn't just a campaign promise -- it's fundamental to a healthy democracy.

   

This fourth of July marks the 45th anniversary America's freedom of information law. FOIA transformed our world by giving teeth to the public's right to know. It made government prove why public information shouldn't be disclosed, instead of forcing people to justify why it should be. The internet age has brought another revolution, transforming how we expect information will be available to us. But our freedom of information laws have slowly calcified through a combination of inertia, bureaucratic reluctance, and lack of funding.

Just as FOIA of the 1960s embraced disclosure upon demand, it's time to reinvent our freedom of information laws for the internet age and embrace affirmative disclosure -- where government information is routinely published online, in real time, and in machine readable formats.

We have already seen some baby-steps in this direction. For example:

• The 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments (or E-FOIA) required agencies to publish records that they expected would be the subject of multiple requests in an "electronic reading room," and instructed agencies to make records available in electronic format when requested.
• The Obama Administration created Data.gov, an online repository of "high value, machine readable" datasets generated by the Executive branch, and launched the Open Government Directive, which (among other things) encouraged agencies to release more information to the public. (These initiatives have been subject to significant funding cuts.)
• The Office of Government Information Services Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice* recently launched FOIA.gov, a one-stop shop to see how well agencies are staying on top of their FOIA requests.
• Nearly all agencies have websites where limited information is disclosed about their operations and activities.

The scope of the public access is much larger than these initiatives can address. The public's information needs spans the scope of government activity, from census data to spending data, from policy and position papers to economist forecasts, from maps to legal information, and much more. It is worth highlighting four particularly clever ideas for next steps as examples of where things could go.

The Public Online Information Act (or POIA) is pending legislation, originally introduced by Rep. Israel and Sen. Tester, that would require executive branches agencies to publish all publicly available information in the Internet in a timely fashion and in user-friendly formats, and create an advisory committee to help develop government-wide Internet publication standards. Like FOIA, POIA allows the public to go to court if agencies fail to comply.

In the UK, the website WhatDoTheyKnow.com makes many government information requests publicly available. You submit your FOIA-like request through the website, they submit the request to the appropriate agency and publish the answer online. This reduces the number of duplicate requests while making the sum of information released available to everyone. (There's a similar effort to crowd-source state-level freedom of information requests in the US called MuckRock. Disclosure: Sunlight gave funding to MuckRock.)

Data quality is a big deal. The ten open data principles lay out a means to evaluate the extent to which data is open and accessible to the public. Similarly, efforts like ClearSpending mash up government data to evaluate the accuracy of information reported by the government in the first place. It's difficult for the public to make use of information that is badly formatted or inaccurately reported.

It's not enough to make sure that the data reported by the government is accurate. We must also ensure that government identifies and reports on all the data that it has. The government must audit its holdings and build an index of what it has and who is responsible for maintaining the information. The President's recent Memo on Regulatory Compliance, for example, addresses how private entities disclose information to the agencies that regulate them and how that data is reviewed, shared inside government, and (whenever appropriate) made available to the public.

The public's need to access government-held information is as old as our libraries, post offices, and government publications. It's time to make our public information available online.

• Corrected to reflect the right agency. OGIS mediates FOIA disputes and reviews agency compliance with FOI; OIP launched FOIA.gov.

In an interview with Newsweek, former U.S. President, Bill Clinton suggested lowering corporate tax rates as one of the ways of creating more jobs and solving the country's current debt problem. He added that this should be done together with a reduction of loopholes that cause unfair disparities among corporations. Here at Sunlight, Ryan recently used Influence Explorer, to connect the dots between tax breaks and money in politics. The former president's suggestion may have good intentions but left and unchecked, tax breaks to corporations which end up donating huge sums of money to political candidates, can determine the type of government we get.

• Details on the value of tax breaks in Oregon will now soon be available for the public to see. The state’s governor, John Kitzhaber has signed into law, House Bill 2825, which will require all information on tax breaks given to business -- including their names, addresses and the reasons why they are receiving the breaks -- to be posted on this website. According to Mark Robyn, the breaks have been likened by policy wonks, to government spending even though they receive less oversight. Nonetheless, taxpayer watchdog and consumer advocacy groups are welcoming the transparency news on Tax Policy blog.

• Politics of disclosure is at play in Minnesota. A conflict on what should and should not be disclosed is brewing between the Governor’s office and the legislature. Open government award recipient Rich Neumeister, who is certain there is secrecy in both state and local government, is making some suggestions: make data public; including all communication between the governor and the legislature. A legislature expert himself, Neumeister is well aware that the legislature may not be under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, but it is still answerable to the public and should therefore be transparent. Details on Open Secrets.

• A bill sponsored by Michael T. Morley is causing a stir in Utah. HB 220 - also commonly known as “We are a Republic” - is according to Curt Bentley, the latest form of contempt for the ordinary voter. Citing the previous disregard of public records laws with the introduction of HB 477, Bentley critics Utah’s caucus system as one that does not prevent indifference towards voters but instead renders them powerless to influence election results. Read more as he writes about the thin line between republicanism and guardianship and what democracy has to do with both, on Utah Political Summary

• Stacey Kalberman, Georgia’s Ethics Commission executive secretary, revealed earlier that she was being forced to resign in order to stop an ethics investigation of Gov. Nathan Deal. Now, journalism award winner, Jay Bookman, shares the details of the Commission’s meeting that led up to the former executive’s announcement of her resignation. Bookman adds that the pleasantries between the Ethics Commission and Kalberman only created more suspicion from the members of the press who feel that the Commission is not being transparent about the governor’s investigation. Jay Bookman has more.

• Washington state Governor Christine Gregoire will now continue to withhold records from a public records request under the rubric of the executive privilege. In a superior court ruling, over a lawsuit filed by the Freedom Foundation against the governor, a judge ruled that the executive privilege, that exempts the governor from disclosing public records, does apply. Dennis Box blogs that a follow up ruling to decide if the executive privilege is indeed part of 300-plus recognized statutory exemptions in the Public Records Act, has been scheduled. More on News Notes.

While advocating for writing and printing as one of the strongest pillars of support for free government -- the absence of which -- would be detrimental, the "father of FOI Anders Chydenius, in his "Memorandum on the Freedom of the Press" once said that...

Learning and good manners would be suppressed, coarseness in thought, speech and customs would flourish, and sinister gloom would within a few years darken our entire sky of freedom.

Though spoken in 1775, these words resonate with what is happening with FOIA today especially in states such as Illinois. It may not be outright coarseness in thought, but when decisions are made to suppress freedom of information, it becomes incumbent upon us to demand for even more "sunshine" from our leaders.

 

• A bill that will delay FOIA requests and authorize a public body to charge a records requester for the actual cost of retrieving and transporting public records from an off-site storage facility, has been passed by both the Senate and House in Illinois. Sponsored by Don Harmon and Barbara Flynn Currie, HB 1716 will prioritize requests made by “infrequent requesters” while deliberately delaying those made by “recurrent requesters”. Carl Skinner wonders if this is Harmon’s idea of reform for the Freedom of Information Act and points out that the bill was passed based on suggestions made by government bodies instead of consulting the public. He details who voted for and against it on McHenry County Blog.

• For a state that was once ranked 49th by the 2008 Better Government Association Integrity Index , Vermont is set to turn a new transparency page. Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a bill that will strengthen the state’s public records law by requiring reimbursement of legal fees for citizens who successfully challenge a denied request for documents. Authored by Rep. Donna G. Sweaney, H 73 will establish a government transparency office to enforce the public records act. Sheldon Toplitt adds that the new law will also create a panel to review the over 200 exemptions currently existing. More on the Unruly of Law.

• There is a group improving local government transparency in Minnesota by pushing for  standardized financial reporting with details of the state’s spending including public officials’ salaries and expenses. Open Government Minnesota, is proposing a business-like approach “Object Code”, to  provide access to data that can be used to create an open public discussion.  Read how this will boost transparency in local government on Big Fat Finance Blog.

• There is a new tool that is revolutionizing the way government functions and communicates with its citizens. Youtown -- a mobile device that provides a two-way interaction between citizens and their government -- is fast becoming a popular way of making mobile local government easy. Created by DotGov , a Seattle startup, the tool is now being used by several states including Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. Aislyn Greene writes that though residents will use the tool for free, local governments will have to pay to access feedback. See who else is using it on Venture Blog.