“Open Data” policies have been making their way through legislative bodies and executive orders with increasing frequency, especially since 2009. While those that have passed mark progress and serve as inspiration for other governments and advocates to approach this issue, we’re only just starting to really explore what open data policies can do, what broader issues they can address, and what open data can mean.

To move forward in grappling with those questions, we’ve created this series of Guidelines for Open Data Policies. We intend this more as a “living document” than as model legislation -- a menu of options for what can be contained within an open data policy. It provides sample provisional language packed with detailed explanations and use cases, drawn heavily from the important work of our peers in the transparency and open government space. We found the following resources especially helpful (and cite them often): Josh Tauberer’s Open Data is Civic Capital: Best Practice for “Open Government Data”, The 8 Principles of Open Data, Civic Commons’ Open Data Policy wiki page, The Open Knowledge Foundation’s Open Data Handbook, and Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg’s Power of Information Report.

Primarily, though, this collection represents our desire to present a broad vision of the kinds of challenges that open data policies can address. We talk to a lot of policy makers about what they should consider when the question of regulating government data arises, and we decided it would be helpful to create a list of provisions and ideas that they could draw from in crafting their approach. Perhaps in so doing, we could avoid some of the frequent shortfalls and oversights in open data legislation. As more and more open data policies get introduced, it’s important to ground our work as advocates in a broad set of ideas about what is possible.

A few general notes: Although some provisions may carry more importance or heft than others, these Guidelines are not ranked in order of priority. Further, it’s worth repeating that these provisions are only a guide. As such, they do not address a variety of questions one should consider in preparing policies. Instead, we’ve attempted to answer the specific question: What are the different provisions that can or should exist in open data policies?

These Guidelines will feed into our analysis and support of ongoing open data initiatives, and we encourage others to use them, too. Based on feedback and real world application, we’ll continue to refine this document and to promote the best practices (and aspirations) of open data.

We welcome your input.

The Guidelines are accessible online at http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/opendata/ and can also be downloaded in PDF and ODT.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

We make a point of highlighting citizens demanding transparency from their local government partly because the recognition sparks motivation for others to do the same in their localities. Today's guest blogger is David Forbes.  David is a senior news reporter for the Asheville-based weekly Mountain Xpress, covering issues of politics, crime and transparency. Catch up with more of his work on Twitter @DavidForbes.

An open-records fight in the mountain city of Asheville over missing evidence has far larger implications: Can public officials simply ignore rules for transparent government?

Last spring, some big news erupted in my city. Usually, Asheville is known for our local beer, mountain vistas and artistic culture. But this notoriety was far less positive.

The Asheville Police Department evidence room had a problem: Large amounts of guns, drugs and money were missing. According to a partial audit, at least 115 items were gone from an evidence room that was in deep disarray.

This news rocked the city. Pending cases were dismissed or delayed. The State Bureau of Investigation swept in, sealing up the evidence room and launching an probe. At an Asheville City Council meeting, District Attorney Ron Moore publicly criticized the APD leadership. The city government shelled out $175,000 for a full audit, and the police chief resigned.

During local government elections later that year, many citizens questioned how much they could trust law enforcement.

The audit was completed early this year, and the public waited for the results. The audit was completed in January this year, but it wasn’t made public. As a local reporter, I figured that at least an executive summary detailing how many items were missing would be released. It wasn't.

In late January, after no response from multiple phone calls, I faxed an open-records request to the district attorney's office. We usually email requests, but according to his secretaries, Moore never checks his email. Neither Moore nor anyone in the DA's office replied.

North Carolina doesn't set a specific time limit for response to open-records requests, but it does require a reply “as promptly as possible.” Two months went by. During this time, we consulted with attorneys at the North Carolina Press Association. They're respected experts in open records and don't hesitate to tell reporters when a document is out of reach. But based on their analysis of the case, they determined that the records should be released.

Our state's open-records law specifically states, “The use of a public record in connection with a criminal investigation or the gathering of criminal intelligence shall not affect its status as a public record." That means documents like the audit — detailing what was and wasn't missing from the evidence room — are generally public, as they usually don't implicate a particular person, N.C. Press Association attorneys explained. Indeed, previous audits of the evidence room had been released to the public regularly.

So we sent another open-records request; our managing editor and publisher joined me in signing it.

No response.

Under the terms of the contract it signed with the company conducting the audit the city was due a redacted copy of the audit paid for with taxpayer money. But city officials haven't pressed for it. The city manager has said he's satisfied with Moore's handling of the case. A press association attorney later said the city's lack of action "demonstrates they are trying to artfully avoid the requirements of open records law," because they would then have to make the audit public.

Last month, Xpress discussed the issue with other local media outlets. In addition to continued reporting on the issue, representatives of nine of them signed a joint statement in April calling on Moore to release the documents.

"District Attorney Ron Moore's actions are not in compliance with either state law or the practices of transparent government that the people of Buncombe County deserve from their elected officials, especially those charged with upholding the law," the statement declared. "As members of the local media who believe in a free press and open government, we call on Moore to turn over the results of the evidence room audit and help restore public trust."

We also started a petition for interested members of the public to sign.

Last month, as pressure built, Moore did respond to some local media, now citing a short, blanket opinion from the state office of the courts that declares the documents not public record. The local-media alliance continues to press for the document's release and consider the options going forward, but public officials still show no particular hurry to release public records about an issue of basic confidence in their law enforcement.

What gives this case importance outside of our city is the precedent it sets.

As NCPA Attorney Mike Tadych put it when reviewing the case, "Certainly, with this record, you could find the copying machine in two months time." That lack of response on the part of a government agency charged with upholding the law has serious implications.

North Carolina's open-records law, like many around the country, recognizes that law enforcement may have a legitimate reason to keep some records private. But it's also supposed to ensure that normally public records shedding light on an agency's competence don't suddenly stop being public because they might be used in an investigation. As Tadych puts it, "Typically an audit doesn't point fingers, it just says 'this doesn't reconcile.'"

That's why what's happening in our corner of the world bears watching by any open-government advocate. Precedents, good and bad, are set by cases exactly like this.

Photo credit: Jonathan Welch and Max Cooper

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at guestblog@sunlightfoundation.com

A core mission of the Sunlight Foundation is to enable citizen participation through technology and lower the bar to access government. Through our free tools we're constantly looking for ways to produce a more transparent and accountable government. Today, we're proud to introduce Scout, a tool that allows you to create customized keyword alerts to notify you whenever issues you care about are included in legislative or regulatory actions. This project embodies our goals as an organization: anyone can now freely get the immediate access to information that previously required significant organizational capacity in your state capital or Washington, D.C.

Start by entering a keyword or phrase you would like to get updates about. Scout then saves your subscriptions and sends notifications via email or text message whenever the subscribed issue or bill is talked about in Congress, mentioned in the Federal Register or comes up in state legislation. Through your profile you can create as many alerts as you'd like and group them by tags with the additional option to make them public for others to follow your issues. Users can also complement a Scout subscription by adding optional external RSS feeds, such as press releases from a member of Congress or an issue-based blog.

One of our inspirations to create Scout was to help track when new exemptions were proposed to the Freedom of Information Act. We created a collection of alerts on the topic and anyone interested in the issue can get alerts along with our staff.

Not only has Scout proved useful in tracking issues in Sunlight's policy advocacy, but we've already used it to help change proposed laws. We used our alert for the phrase "552 of title 5," created to track newly proposed exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, to alert expert allies on Freedom of Information about an overly broad exemption. Very quick work among a variety of staff, especially OpentheGovernment.org, led to a sign-on letter, thoughtful feedback to Congressional staff, and eventually, a much better bill. We conceived of Scout with just this kind of work in mind. Our assumption is that timely, focused updates on specific issues can help public scrutiny lead to better policy. With the recent FDA bill's FOIA exemption, this was certainly the case.

Our rapid alert system is built on a foundation of strong data including our Capitol Words site that indexes the Congressional Record, legislative text and summary information from GPO and GovTrack, full text search of bills in all 50 states (a first) from our Open States project, notices on upcoming floor debates and regulatory filings included in the Federal Register. It's an ambitious undertaking, but we're excited to bring together all these important sources to provide you the most comprehensive alert system yet.

Visit Scout to watch a video about how the tool can work for you and please join us on Tuesday, June 26 for a webinar about Scout from 1 to 2 pm ET. The session will cover basic skills such as search terms and bill queries as well as advance functions such as tagging subscriptions, merging outside RSS feeds and curating search collections.

Our in-house developers at Sunlight Labs built Scout with generous support from the Stanton Foundation. Its code is open source and reusable and also provides a developer mode for advanced users. The site utilizes a number of Sunlight APIs including: Capitol Words, Real Time Congress and Open States. Read more about the data behind Scout here.

Scout isn’t even out of beta, but it’s already having a positive impact on lawmaking. You can see how in this email that Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org sent to the FOI-L listserv yesterday:

This morning, the Senate approved an amendment from Senator Leahy that preserves FOIA in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. The original language in the S.3187, Section 708 would have allowed the FDA to deny the public access to information relating to drugs obtained from a federal, state, local, or foreign government agency, if the agency has requested that the information be kept confidential. Senator Leahy’s amendment allows the FDA to obtain and protect drug inspection and investigation information from foreign governments under clear guidelines and with delimited protection time.

The original language was opposed in a letter by the openness and accountability community. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Leahy and his staff, and the collaboration of the HELP Committee leadership, the request from FDA for a carte blanche to withhold information from the public and Congress was denied. At the same time, the legitimate concerns regarding foreign governments were appropriately addressed.

Thanks to our colleagues in the openness and accountability community for your hard work on this.

Patrice’s colleague Amy Bennett sent a follow-up email that explained exactly how Scout was a part of this:

[W]e’d be remiss if we didn’t give credit to the Sunlight Foundation’s latest legislative language tool, Scout (http://scout.sunlightfoundation.com/), for alerting us to the existence of the original provision. You can use the tool to set up email alerts for key phrases or follow a particular bill. It covers Congress, regulations across the whole executive branch, and legislation in all 50 states.

We use Scout to get updates anytime Congress is considering expanding what can be withheld under the federal FOIA by setting up an alert that searches bills in Congress for the term “552 (b)” (thanks to a reform written into law last year, all new b3 statutes must cite FOIA – USC 552).

Obviously, an email alert can only go so far. It took the work of Patrice and Amy, like-minded organizations like Public Citizen, and members of Sen. Leahy’s staff to catch this problematic provision and correct it.

But that good work was made possible by the tip-off that Scout provided. It’s a great example of technology lowering barriers to participation in the democratic process, which ultimately results in better governance — and that idea is exactly why Sunlight exists.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Florida has been known to have some of the most impressive open government practices. But a few recent changes threatened to shake the people’s foundation of their right to know. Our guest blogger Barbara Petersen is here today to share the Sunshine State’s new initiatives on opening up their government. Barbara is the President of the First Amendment Foundation  a private not-for profit in Tallahassee Florida which acts as an advocate for the public’s right to oversee it’s government.

Two weeks ago, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott held a press conference, announcing the launch of an ambitious project that will allow online access to much of his email correspondence and that of 11 members of his leadership team.  Project Sunburst.

According to a press release from the Governor’s Press Office, the emails will be available with search capabilities.  Project Sunburst requires that all emails sent or received by the Governor and the designated staffers be posted to the Sunburst website within seven days.  The goal, however, is posting within 24 hours of receipt or transmission, and the Governor has plans to expand the program to include other agencies within the executive branch. The launch of Project Sunburst is one of a number of Governor Scott’s transparency initiatives – a second website, FloridahasARightToKnow  launched last year, provides access to state employee salary information and state pensions of $100,000 per year or more.  The state employee information is extremely useful, providing the name of the employee, the name of the employing agency, and the employee’s annual salary and number of years employed.  The pension information is relatively worthless in comparison – the database lists each state agency and the number of employees with pensions of more than $100,000 but provides little information that would help identify the employee.

Many of the Scott’s detractors claim that his transparency initiatives have more to do with the Governor’s political agenda – reducing the state work force and driving down the cost of government pensions – than a desire to be held accountable.  Regardless, the transparency website, like Project Sunburst, allows for easy and free access to information that is regularly requested through routine public record requests and sets a very positive example for other state agencies and local governments – if the governor can provide online access to regularly requested records, then why can’t a school board or county commission? In the first months of the Scott administration, his Office of Open Government reported a steep increase in the number of public record requests, particularly requests from the media for the email correspondence of the governor’s top staff.  In an attempt to alleviate the workload and improve access, the First Amendment Foundation, worked with the Capitol press corps and OOG staff to devise a plan under which FAF would make weekly requests for the email correspondence of five members of the Governor’s staff; once obtained by FAF, the email records would be dumped in a DropBox, and everyone given the key. Had it only been so simple.

FAF dutifully made the first request on March 7, 2011, requesting all email correspondence sent or received by the Governor, his chief of staff, and the five staffers. At about the same time FAF started making its public records requests, the governor’s office announced a “cost recovery” policy for public records. Under the new policy, OOG staff would respond to each public record request with an invoice estimating the cost of providing the records; once the invoice was paid (by cash or check, credit cards not accepted), the requested records would be produced.  There would be no charge for records requests costing less than $5.  What seemed like a reasonable policy at first blush turned into the public access nightmare from hell, and because of the time it took to track requests – nearly all were provided in pieces, a few one week, the remainder months later – and the costs associated with obtaining access, FAF was forced to abandon its project after only two months.

We received most of the records requested that first week within a fairly reasonable period of time and at no cost.  There was one glaring example, however: it took two months and cost $788.84 to obtain about 1,100 emails from the Governor’s communications director.  According to the invoice, the staffer took an hour to review 100 emails at an hourly rate of $70.87/hour – the communications director made $147,400 per year, and FAF was charged for the 11 hours it took him to retrieve and review his emails, many of which were on his personal email account.  (In another instance, we were charged the hourly rate for a top staffer who made just over $200,000 a year or $96.64 an hour.) FAF made eight requests in all, paid about $4,000 to obtain the requested emails, and received the last batch of the records in December – ten months after the final request was made.  Ultimately, the Governor agreed to refund the costs charged for those records it took longer than 60 days to obtain and, most importantly, made important revisions to his original cost recovery policy. Project Sunburst alleviates many of the problems FAF encountered and is, in all respects, a huge step forward for the Sunshine State.  The devil, of course, is in the details.  According to the May 3 press release, emails containing exempt information will not be posted, but will be provided pursuant to a public record request (with the exempt information redacted).  It seems, then, that we will need to continue to make regular public record requests for those emails and, of course, for the email correspondence of those staffers not included in Project Sunburst. Regardless, Governor Rick Scott deserves to be commended and hopefully, others in government, both in Florida and around the country, will follow his example.

(Below are the First Amendment public records request timeline)

A timeline of Public Records Requests by the First Amendment Foundation to the Governor of Florida's Office

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at guestblog@sunlightfoundation.com

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Introducing our guest blogger, Ryan Ozawa. Ryan wears many hats, in addition to being a lecturer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, he is also a technology Cohost at Hawaii Public Radio and a Communications and Project Manager at Hawaii Information Service. You can read more of his thoughts at Hawaii Blog or follow him @hawaii.

If a good compromise is one in which neither side is satisfied, a new bill passed by the Hawaii state legislature is an unmitigated success.

The state Office of Information Practices, dedicated to "ensuring open government" but headed by a political appointee, supported amendments to Hawaii law that would give government agencies a process by which they could fight requests for information in the courts.

Open-government and media organizations fought the measure, saying it created a costly and cumbersome process that goes in the wrong direction. Yet, even some of the government bodies that would be given more options to fight information disclosure decisions by the OIP were against the bill, saying the measure “goes too far.”

The OIP was designed to administer Hawaii’s two main open records laws: the Uniform Information Practices Act , and the Sunshine Law, coverning public meetings. Those laws were instituted with the clear intent to guarantee the public’s access to government information, and the UIPA goes as far as to say that a government agency “does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court” to contest a ruling by the OIP to release requested information.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine Law -- which has been around since 1975, but was only added to the OIP’s responsibilities in 1988 -- had no such provision. So after the OIP told the Kauai County Council it had to release requested information, the council sued the OIP, and won.

The OIP, which has already been consistently underfunded and understaffed, perhaps rightfully concluded that the Kauai case created an opening through which all its rulings could be contested in court. So SB2858 puts a process in place for judiciary review.

Open government advocates pushed instead for lawmakers to close the door to lawsuits under the Sunshine Law the same way the UIPA did. Alas, the courts are often the final arbiter on any law... even laws written specifically to limit their authority.

SB2858 requires government agencies to notify the OIP of their intent to contest a ruling to release information within 30 days. And the OIP would have 30 days to compile and present its justification for its ruling to the court. Watchdog groups and journalists say SB2858 will only add even more delays to the already slow and arduous process of obtaining government records, delays that can often kill the relevance of the requested information.

But government agencies may not be so eager to contest every request automatically. While SB2858 does set up rules by which they can take OIP decisions to court, it also sets a high standard for them to make their case.

First, a government agency can’t merely tell the OIP it will fight its decision, saving all of its justifications for the judge. Instead, government agencies have to make their best and most complete case to the OIP, because except where there are “extraordinary circumstances,” the courts will only be able to review the same information the OIP had when making their decision.

And secondly, the courts are only allowed to overturn an OIP ruling when it was “palpably erroneous,”or obviously or clearly wrong. If the OIP’s ruling that a record should be released is merely shaky or fuzzy, then, the OIP’s ruling should stand.

These restrictions, as a result, made some government agencies oppose a bill that seemed designed to empower them in resisting public records requests. Danny Mateo, chair of the Maui County Council, testified against the bill, which he said granted the OIP “quasi-judicial authority.”

Nonetheless, SB2858 SD1 HD2 CD1  passed its final reading in the House on Thursday last week, and will most certainly be signed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

The Office of the Governor submitted testimony that said it “strongly supports” the bill, as did Cheryl Kakazu Park, whom Gov. Abercrombie appointed to head the OIP. Of course, Park got the job after her predecessor, Cathy Takase, was fired, a move that just happened to come after Takase ruled against the governor’s attempts to withhold a list of names of juidicial candidates. A list that he ultimately and reluctantly was forced to release anyway.

Ryan is also organizing a Sunlight Meetup in Honolulu on Wednesday this week which you are welcome to join.

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at guestblog@sunlightfoundation.com

There have been lots of conversations recently -- most of them provocative in the good sense of that word -- about the success or failure of the open data and/or open government movements. I have just a few thoughts to add that I hope amplify Sunlight's position.

Sunlight believes in open data and open government not because these are abstract goods, but because we want to make government more accountable to ordinary people and less subservient to well-connected special interests. We think it's great that more consumer-facing data will be opened up by the Obama administration (aka "smart disclosure"), and we want the "operating system" of government open and free, along with many others. And to be sure, there are many additional benefits to be had from opening up government data including increasing efficiency, reducing waste, creating new business opportunities and empowering consumers.

But we remain insistent that a central if not the core goal of the transparency movement must be to shift power from the few to the many, by making all the information about who is trying to influence the process and what they get out the other end more accessible to all. That's why we keep a large part of our attention focused on opening up the political influence arena and exposing the lobbying culture, and that's why we called out (back in September 2010) the inadequacies of the Obama administration's implementation of its open government directive; why we criticized the extra-governmental crackdown on WikiLeaks; and why we will continue to press both sides of the aisle and the regulatory agencies to force open the exploding world of "Dark Money" super PACs being employed by Republican and Democratic operatives alike.

I've been at these fights a few decades now, and I have never been more optimistic. The culture of transparency as an instrument of accountability -- by citizens and government alike -- is now generally accepted. The strategy of pushing and pulling Washington -- and every state capitol and every government in the world -- will be done by the tens of millions of people online demanding answers to their questions and who will, eventually, vote based on the answers they receive or don't. Information is the key to action.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Today's guest blogger is another example of how all citizens regardless of their professions, can be players in participatory politics. Joining us from Arkansas is Paul J. Spencer. Paul has taught Political Science and History at Catholic High School for Boys for the last 13 years.  He is Chairman of the Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee. You can follow him on Twitter @RegnatPopulusAR.

Teaching Government and Politics to high school seniors year after year begins to have a curious effect on the teacher.  I have known other teachers and professors before me that evolved to being confirmed Socialists upon their retirement.  Perhaps it is the youthful innocence of engaged students that begin to observe that money has a greater role in the political process than do actual people that causes this evolution of thought over time.  For myself, there came a time at which I felt that merely teaching my students the problems in our American political system was no longer enough.

I began to recognize a self-perpetuating cycle in American electoral politics today. This whirlpool consists of the following components:

• First, a lack of electoral and lobbying transparency that allows moneyed interests to have a greater voice in the electoral process than actual voters.
• Second, a lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to their constituents who have very little to do with the success of the politician’s reelection campaign.
• Third, a lack of true representation for the interests of citizens above those of money.
• Fourth, a creation of a culture of lack of accountability to voters within the body politic.
• Fifth, voter “disconnect” with their elected representatives.
• Sixth, voter apathy and disengagement with the political process in general.

The sixth component curtails citizens’ ability to properly channel their dissatisfaction with the political process towards a productive end, thusly enabling the cycle to begin anew.

I imagine I began to feel the need to free myself from Vicious Cycle Component #6 after the infamous Citizen’s United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling  in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited spending ability in political campaigns.  This, coupled with the global financial meltdown of 2008 and the appalling lack of accountability our government placed on those responsible, compelled me to attempt to engage as best I could in fighting to at least expose these injustices as so many ordinary Americans have done before me.  My wife and I joined the Occupy movement in Little Rock, Arkansas last October.  We participated in marches and General Assemblies but over time felt a desire to engage IN the political process to try to effect some change through legislation.  We met at a downtown pizza joint and discussed various options that could be attempted with interested academics and activists.  It turned out that my wife’s brother’s best friend from high school had been working on campaign and lobbying reform (Little Rock is a small town) and we hooked up with him.  We envisioned using the Ballot Initiative process to craft a law to curb some of the worst ethics abuses in a state which had just received a D+ from the Center for Public Integrity on its "Corruption Risk Report Card". We formed a Ballot Question Committee whose name was derived from Arkansas’ State Motto: “Regnat Populus” or “The People Rule”.   To make a long story short, with much collaboration of generously donated legal talent, various Occupiers and also fellow teachers I work with, The Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee finally birthed The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012.  The components of the Act in brief are to:

• Disallow direct corporate contributions in Arkansas elections (as the law currently provides in Federal elections).
• Raise the “cooling-off period” for the revolving door from legislator to lobbyist from the current 1 year waiting period to 2 years.
• Disallow any gifts or meals whatsoever from lobbyists to legislators (not even a cup of coffee).

Because our movement arose spontaneously in response to real events in America today (namely, the Occupy Wall Street movement), we do not have the luxury of time and do not have large moneyed backers to accomplish our goal of 62,507 signatures by a July 6^th deadline.    However, we certainly do have public opinion on our side.  A recent Arkansas poll showed us to have a 69% voter approval rate for this initiative across all political demographics.  We envisioned a wide spread network of canvassers taking action as citizens to break the cycle of voter apathy and political unresponsiveness.   That is the challenge we now face.  Almost every one of us involved in this committee has full time jobs.  We are teachers, a Presbyterian minister, a nurse, an engineer, a non- profit staffer, retired military, and students combined with the generously donated talent of attorneys that want to work to have a system in which legislators are as accountable to the voters as they are to the influence peddlers in state government.

Thus far, we have garnered $2,525 from individuals that has covered printing and postage costs.  There has been slow response from progressive groups in Arkansas to back the measure as noted by Dr. Jay Barth, Political Science professor at Hendrix University in a recent article.  Some fear the measure may hurt the means that legislators gain information, namely from conferences sponsored by industry.  These travel expenses would be banned by the Act.  This point elucidates the game-changing nature of this Initiative.  Putting lobbyists for childrens’ and anti-poverty advocacy groups, and environmental groups on a level playing field with Koch brother funded lobbyists that want to develop around the lake that supplies Little Rock’s drinking water would completely change the way business is done at the Capitol.

We currently stand at a critical juncture.  We have approximately 100 volunteer canvassers working throughout the state.  We have been endorsed by the local and state chapters of the Sierra Club and have state citizen advocacy groups actively canvassing and working with us.  We have been encouraged by the response of Arkansans when asked if they would like to sign our petition, replying “HELL, yes” after hearing the components and then volunteering to canvass themselves.

Many political insiders have scoffed at our “naïve” attempts to face the odds that stand before us.  But I take comfort in the wisdom of the late historian, Howard Zinn, whose perspective over America’s long span of history is useful to contemplate today.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

We do still need more financial support to spread canvassing efforts to include supporting those that would like to canvass full time.  We do still have a great challenge before us.  But events related to this campaign are unfolding on a daily basis in new and encouraging ways.   We believe that the corrupting influence of money in our political system is the defining issue America faces today.  NOW is the time to act to allow the people to truly rule.

Please visit our website www.thepeoplerule2012.com for more information.  I’m just going to come right out and say it-any donations would be greatly appreciated.

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at guestblog@sunlightfoundation.com

All is not well in the Aloha state. “Sunshine” advocates including Rep. Barbara Marumoto are rising up to oppose a recent attack on Hawaii’s open government. A new bill that was introduced earlier this year is set to intentionally delay responses to public records requests. SB2858 “Creates a process for an agency to obtain judicial review of a decision made by the Office of Information Practices relating to the Sunshine Law or the Uniform Information Practices Act, and clarifies standard of review.” In other words the bill ironically referred to as “relating to open government” instead takes a jab at everything open and has been likened to a closed government bill.

In summary, SB2858 will make it more difficult for the public and media to find out what is going on in state government by:

• Delaying the release of information under the Uniform Information Practices Act.
• Forcing the public to spend money on legal fees in order to access data which should be made available in the first place.
• Giving agencies the freedom to challenge an Office of Information Practices (OIP) ruling in court.
• Setting state agencies in opposition against each other in a bid to comply with practices within the Uniform Information Practices Act.

It goes without say that if this bill is approved, Hawaii’s history of maintaining a decent record in keeping an open government will be tainted. Worse, we will have no idea what the government is doing and when it is doing what it’s doing -- unless of course if we are willing to go to court to find out. Effective July 1, 2030, the anti transparency bill sadly has the support of Gov. Neil Ambercrombie who is already said to be a secretive governor.

Allowing government agencies such as Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (a supporter of the bill) to appeal unfavorable Office of Information Practices rulings -- as this bill proposes to do -- shows that government is clearly putting their own first and the public second. Hawaii’s legislature has a Submit Online Testimony where the public can send in their testimonies and hopefully convince everyone involved that this bill is bad for transparency -- just as Common Cause Hawaii did.

Common Cause Hawaii Testimony on SB2858