Last evening, over a hundred supporters of open government joined Sunlight Foundation, the National Press Club, ProPublica, United Republic, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Openthegovernment.org, Online News Association, ASNE, POPVOX, ProPublica, Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and Electronic Privacy Information Center to celebrate Sunshine Week. The event held at the National Press Club, was an opportunity to meet those working on and committed to transparency.

Although the event was just an informal gathering for advocates and journalists, the guest of honor was clearly the spirit of James Madison whose birthday coincides with Sunshine Week. An early advocate of transparency, he famously wrote:

"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

Tomorrow is James Madison's actual birthday and also National Freedom of Information (FOI) Day. The First Amendment Center will be holding a conference at the Newseum to discuss some of the current issues surrounding freedom of information and open records. Can't make it to the conference? You can follow the conversation live on webcast.

Here in DC? You can visit the National Archives and view the original Freedom of Information Act. Happy Sunshine Week- and hope the weather is actually cooperation in your part of the country!

While journalistic skill and technique are essential for writing a good investigative article, we often take it for granted that journalists have access to the information they need to write complex news stories. Without publicly available data, much of our news would not be possible. We've been looking at investigative articles as part of an ongoing series called "Back to the Source" for the last several months. Now we've decided to amp it up a bit and make redacted visuals to explicitly demonstrate how little the public would know without laws and regulations that force the government to make the data it has publicly available.

In honor of Sunshine Week we decided to create "The News Without Transparency." We took original investigative articles and manually blacked out all the information that would not be known without existing transparency measures. It is worth taking a look at just how little we would know.

Some examples we found notable are below, and the ongoing series is available here.

The News Without Transparency: Military Defense Contractors, Lobbyists Support Mrs. McKeon

The News Without Transparency: Pentagon Contractors Flock to Mrs. McKeon

Military defense contractors and lobbyists are rushing to support the wife of Congressional House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon in her bid for California state assembly, according to a Salon article in early February.

This article would not have been possible without public access to campaign finance and lobbying data.

The article reports that in the first few months of fundraising, Patricia McKeon was able to collect $19,200 from defense contractors or their lobbyists. This includes $3,000 from Lockheed Martin - a company currently locked in a battle to maintain funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. It also includes donations from lobbying firm Beau Boulter LLC, which lobbies on behalf of Proxy Aviations, and Bruce Leftwich, a DC-based government affairs specialist.

The California Secretary of State's website provides campaign finance data for all candidates running for public office, including Patricia McKeon's. The data can be searched by contributions received or made, expenditures made, late and high dollar contributions, and late independent expenditures. The contributions listed on Mrs. McKeon's disclosure page include the following...

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

The News Without Transparency: U.S. Approved Business With Blacklisted Nations

The News Without Transparency: U.S. Approves Business With Blacklisted Nations

The New York Times published an article in December 2010 investigating the U.S. government’s approval of American companies doing business with countries blacklisted for sponsoring terrorism, such as Iran. According to the article, the Treasury Department has granted almost 10,000 licenses for business deals involving these blacklisted nations, some of which were impacted by political influence.

In addition to good reporting, the public availability of data was essential to making this such a meaningful investigative piece. That said, much of the underlying data for this article was hard to obtain, and the article itself says that even after the Times filed a FOIA request, “The process took three years, and the government heavily redacted many documents. . . ”

We investigated and have highlighted what data is publicly available and what data isn’t, but in some cases can be obtained through FOIA.

The article highlights how much less business the United States did with Iran than China or Europe did, pointing out that “…in the first quarter of this year, 0.02 percent of American exports went to Iran.” The U.S. Census Bureau provides monthly and annual datasets detailing American foreign trade, which provides information such as the data point used in the article. The annual report for 2010 is available here and can be viewed as a PDF or as a zip file for text or excel formats.

Click here to read our full analysis of the data behind this article

The News Without Transparency: Obama Rewards Campaign Contributors

The News Without Transparency: Obama Rewards Campaign Contributors

An in-depth analysis of Obama's 2008 campaign contributors conducted by iWatch News in 2011 determined that in certain circumstances major bundlers ended up receiving appointments to key White House positions, invitations to White House events, and stimulus money awarded through contracts. This analysis required a high level of investigative journalism skill, but would not have been possible without public access to several data sources.

The iWatch analysis frequently returns to the story of Donald H. Gips, a Colorado businessman and bundler for Obama. His story provides a useful frame for illustrating the data sources that provided essential information for this piece.

The article states that Gips bundled over $500,000 for Obama in 2008.  Presidential candidates are not required to report their bundlers, but both Obama and McCain chose to do so in 2008. The Center for Responsive Politics makes available the list from 2008 as well as a list of 2012 bundlers for those candidates who have chosen to disclose. While the candidate usually only discloses the name of the bundler, CRP adds value by including additional information such as the total amount contributed, the name of the bundler, the city and state, and employer. The information also contains the total amount the bundler has contributed him or herself to the specified candidate since 1990. Bundlers are additionally broken down by industry. A search for Gips shows that he bundled over $500,000 in 2008 and has individually donated $32,391 since 1990.

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

The News Without Transparency: $52 Steaks on Menu as AT&T Feted Lawmakers During T-Mobile Push

The News Without Transparency: $52 Steaks on Menu as AT&T Feted Lawmakers During T-Mobile Push

The proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger dominated the news in Washington last fall. It caused quite the stir, with numerous outlets reporting on AT&T's massive lobbying efforts to push through the merger. Bloomberg was one such news outlet, reporting a story of expensive steaks and 'lobbyist's libations' in early September. The story focused on the numerous swanky fundraisers AT&T was hosting as well as their generous campaign donations to key lawmakers.

This was a detailed investigative piece that involved a good deal of skilled journalism. It would not have been possible without public access to campaign finance data and lobbying disclosure information.

The article begins describing the lavish fundraisers AT&T had been hosting for lawmakers, citing Sunlight's Party Time data. Sunlight's Party Time data is free and available for anyone to use. We manually collect fundraiser and event invitations and put them online. They are searchable by a variety of of criteria including committee, leadership PAC, beneficiary, host, and venue.

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

This Sunshine Week is bringing in a series of remarkable citizens around the nation -- showing us that everyone can demand for open government from our leaders. Here today to share his one-man experience in opening up the City of Atlanta, is our guest blogger Matthew Cardinale. Matthew is the News Editor and Founder of the Atlanta Progressive News and a North American Correspondent for the Inter-Press Service.

Atlanta has had three names in its history: Marthasville, Terminus, and Atlanta.  My friend Jill and I joked that Terminus sounded like a more appropriate name to describe the City of Atlanta and their Law Department, with their endless financial resources, that is, courtesy of the taxpayers.  I guess it was because it sounded more cold and bureaucratic, more ruthless, evocative of the Terminator, evocative of Goliath.

I never intended to take on Terminus.  Actually, at the time I was trying to build relationships with newly elected Council Members and to strengthen relationships with incumbent Members.  So much for that!

I was concerned about efforts by Councilwoman Joyce Sheperd (District 12), newly appointed Chairperson of the Community Development/Human Resources (CD/HR) Committee, to limit public comment.  She had instituted an unprecedented five minute time limit at CD/HR and was one of several Council Members pushing for the Council to adopt a uniform rule to limit public comment in all seven Committees.  Currently, each Committee Chair has discretion to adopt their own rules, subject to being overruled by the Committee.

I think many of us concerned citizens were blindsided when at the Council Retreat at the Georgia Aquarium, while at lunch, Committee on Council Chairwoman Felicia Moore (District 9) took a so-called straw poll of members as to whether they wanted the Committee to draft a uniform rule. Seven Council Members voted yea; eight voted nay.

All I wanted to know was how everyone voted!

So I called Felicia Moore and asked her.  She said they didn’t record how the individual Council Members voted because they didn’t consider it an actual vote.  She said it was a straw poll because it wasn’t a vote on legislation; it was a vote on whether to draft legislation.

I requested a copy of the minutes of the Retreat from the Municipal Clerk, Rhonda Dauphin Johnson, and upon receiving them, noted the minutes merely said that Moore had led a discussion and that it was determined the Council was in favor of keeping the current rules.

So, then I looked up the law.  I found OCGA 50-14-1(e)(2), a section of the Georgia Open Meetings Act, said that the minutes shall record all motions and “other proposals.”  I then told Moore and the Committee that the secret vote was a vote on an “other proposal.”Moore repeatedly insisted it wasn’t a secret vote, because as she said, “You can’t take a secret vote at an open meeting.”  I replied if it wasn’t a secret, to tell us how everyone voted!

At that point, Moore sought the opinion of the Law Department.  Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Denius provided an opinion that stated that because it was not a roll call vote, that the vote details did not have to be recorded. I then pointed to another provision in the statute regarding non-roll call votes.

OCGA 50-14-1(e)(2): “In the case of a roll-call vote the name of each person voting for or against a proposal shall be recorded and in all other cases it shall be presumed that the action taken was approved by each person in attendance unless the minutes reflect the name of the persons voting against the proposal or abstaining.”

I said, don’t you see that for non-roll call votes it said you must list the names of the persons voting against the proposal or abstaining?  I then said I was considering filing a lawsuit.  At that point, Moore said to go ahead and whatever I felt was necessary, but that she would not be asking the Clerk to ask Council Members how they voted.

So, at that point I had already threatened to file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, I was not successful in finding an attorney willing to take on my case on contingency.  So, I had to sue without one.  Of course, if you threaten to sue and don’t do it, then your threat has no value in the future.  So I had to sue pro se.

Before doing so, I warned Council Members that I would also be seeking criminal misdemeanor fines against them in their personal capacities.  I asked all fifteen Council Members for their individual votes, promising not to seek fines against them if they told me how they individually voted.  After a continuous campaign, nine disclosed their votes, while six refused. So, I ended up suing the City of Atlanta, the secret six, Moore, Council President Ceasar Mitchell, and Clerk Johnson.

As a journalist, I already had some experience reading legal documents and felt comfortable with the basic outlines of the legal process.

Matthew Cardinale outside Atlanta City Hall: Photo credit by Joeff Davis

My friend Dwanda used Google to find two lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  I used one of them as a template for my initial Complaint.  I simply changed the facts that occurred, the parties, the venue, the causes of action, the relief sought, and of course the laws referenced, from FOIA to the Georgia Open Meetings Act (OMA).I filed my pro se lawsuit in May 2010 in Fulton County Superior Court and the case was assigned to Judge Christopher Brasher.

The City filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. They said that because the OMA did not require the listing of the names except in cases of a roll-call vote, that even if my allegations were all true, that they did not break the law. I filed discovery, including several Interrogatories upon several Council Members and the Municipal Clerk.  I filed a reply to their Motion to Dismiss.

Then, I was shocked when, in August 2010, Judge Brasher granted their Motion to Dismiss.

Brasher ruled the statute did not state that the minutes had to list the names of those voting against the proposal or abstaining, merely that we had to assume the vote was unanimous if those names were not listed.  So go ahead, he basically said, assume the vote was unanimous!

However, the vote, we already knew, was split, seven to eight, so the ruling was forcing us to assume something that wasn’t true.So in October 2010, I appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.  An attorney who was giving me advice up until that point warned me not to appeal, said I would set bad case law, said that my chances of prevailing were slim, and asked whether I wanted to spend two to three years on this.

I argued, and cited case law, that a court should look beyond the literal language of a statute when a literal construction would lead to absurdity.  I argued that the Act should be interpreted broadly, in favor of openness, consistent with the intent of the Act. I found two scholarly journal articles in two different law school journals that wrote about the intent of the Act at the time of its passage in 1988, and cited these as well. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals ruled against me in February 2011.  This time, even the Georgia First Amendment Foundation advised me against wasting my time on appealing.

But I filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia in March 2011, which they granted--a rare accomplishment in itself-- in July 2011.  I made oral arguments before the Supreme Court in October 2011, which are available online here

I filed a Supplemental Brief in November 2011. Then, in February 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in my favor, that the names of those voting against or abstaining do have to be listed in the case of a non-roll call vote

This was such a great day.  I held a press conference on the steps of City Hall, and got to go down to the Council Meeting, which was being held that day, to tell them about themselves. There are so many aspects to this victory.  Not only are secret votes now banned across the entire State of Georgia, but my case sets strong case law that the Act must be construed broadly in favor of openness.

The ruling also lets ordinary citizens know that there is an Open Meetings Act, and an Open Records Act, that gives them the mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable, and that if they just engage the process provided by the Act, sometimes they can win, even without an attorney.

I had another victory last week when on March 05, 2012, the Council adopted a resolution to amend the minutes of the February 2010 Council Retreat to list the names of those voting yea and those voting nay. That was awesome; a bit anticlimactic for the impact of the action in comparison to the two year struggle it took to make them take the action, but it was pretty cool that I basically forced them to do something they really, really did not want to do.

As it stands now, the case is in remittur back to the trial court, via theCourt of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals currently has it and says it may not have time to deal with it for another few weeks or months. When it arrives back at the trial court, I hope for a speedy resolution.  I have asked the City to contact me regarding a possible Consent Decree, but have not heard from them as of yet. I also have a second lawsuit against the City for a variety of Open Meetings and Open Records violations that is currently pending in Fulton County Superior Court.

I’m currently in the process of applying to Law Schools and am waiting to hear back about possibly beginning Law School this Fall Semester 2012. I hope to eventually be able to help citizens across the State of Georgia who require an attorney represent them in Court.

I also have a more long-term project that I am interested in pursuing which is to develop a website to help more ordinary citizens in Georgia to file their own pro se lawsuits.  There are so many lessons I learned that I would like to share with others so that, frankly, they do not have to make some of the same mistakes I did.  And so they won’t have to learn everything from scratch.

Earlier this afternoon the Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder celebrated Sunshine Week by highlighting the federal government's progress "in realizing the promise of the Freedom of Information Act." Holder and four additional speakers pointed out what they called positive steps taken in 2011 to reduce request backlogs, improve processes, and operate under a "presumption of openness." This positive news was tempered by today's Associated Press report that indicates that the federal government is still struggling with FOIA backlogs.

In touting the Department's accomplishments, Holder  looked toward the future and presented some improvements to FOIA currently being instituted by the DOJ. He announced  the DOJ will start posting monthly logs of FOIA requests made to senior leadership offices. The logs will "publicly identify the subject matter and disposition of each request" in an attempt to make it easier for people to locate information they are interested in. The department is also working on a new way for the public to submit and track FOIA requests to the DOJ's senior leadership online.

Additionally, the department is rolling out two new tools in an attempt to make FOIA.gov more responsive; a simplified government-wide search function and an integrated FOIA request process.

Four speakers from across the federal government joined Holder and touted the progress their offices made on FOIA issues

• Carolyn Colvin, Deputy Commissioner at the Social Security Administration, spoke to the SSA's successful implementation of a FOIA Process Evaluation Working Group, which helped improve efficiency.
• Austin Schlick, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer at the FCC, highlighted the overhauled FCC website and greater online access to Commission information.
• Darren Ash, CIO and Chief FOIA Officer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, described the NRC's efforts to deal with a surge of FOIA requests following the tsunami and nuclear crisis in Japan last year.
• Robert Howarth, Deputy Director of Correspondence, Document Production and FOIA Management at the Department of Interior, detailed a reorganization of FOIA leadership at the DOI.

Attorney General Holder's full remarks can be read here.

Update: The National Security Archive has responded to Holder's speech. They strongly criticize the Attorney General for citing discredited statistics in his remarks. They also note that the DOJ has attempted to issue reductive regulations, waged a "war on leakers", and increasingly relied on several exemptions throughout Holder's tenure. The National Security Archive recently awarded the Department of Justice their Rosemary Award for worst open government performance by a federal agency in 2011.

Policy Fellow Matt Rumsey wrote this post. 

What does a former offshore energy company employee and a church Minister have in common? Aside from being members of Florida’s “Sunshine Brigade” -- a First Amendment Foundation coalition of open government and citizen activists who “have been chosen for membership because of their commitment to government oversight and holding government accountable for its actions” -- both Jerry Couey and Alan Isaacson have a burning desire to bring more “sunshine” to Florida.

Jerry and Alan, have fought tirelessly for 5 years to force TEAM Santa Rosa, a publicly-funded economic development organization, into compliance with Florida's open government laws. They successfully lobbied their state attorney to investigate the TEAM's sunshine violations and have brought a significant amount of public attention to the issue. A native of Milton, Florida, Jerry is no stranger to citizen activism. His experience in new media and technology spurred changes in email and social networking policies in both Santa Rosa County and Escambia County which in the past had prohibited use of private email and social networking sites for public business.

Undaunted by the challenges of dealing with public officials, Jerry has continued his fight to open up Florida’s open meetings law -- providing Floridans a chance to speak during public meetings. In march last year, he was selected by the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors for his role in bringing attention to citizens’ first amendment rights. Using his community website, santarosaspeaks.com together with his cable television show Mediacom Santa Rosa Week , the former offshore worker for an energy company has generated the attention of over 10,000 views with 19 subscribers who have come to rely on his citizen input on how to improve their state’s sunshine laws.

As for Alan, his journey to becoming a volunteer for streamlining requests for public record emails, started when he discovered inconsistencies and back door politics aimed at benefiting specific Political Action Committees in Santa Rosa county. Now actively serving as an adviser to county boards that are not fully aware of the state’s open government laws, Alan is using his System Coordinator background to help other residents keep “sunshine” in their local government.

These Sunshine Brigade members have proved that you don’t have to be a specialist to demand for openness from government. But being a member with the First Amendment Foundation -- one of Florida’s longest advocate for protecting sunshine in the state sure does come in handy. Jerry and Alan also have been involved in putting together a discussion on the importance of open government and open-access "sunshine" laws in Florida. The Sunshine Summit is organized as part of this coming Sunshine Week (March 11- 17) by The Florida Society of News Editors and the First Amendment Foundation. The event will take place on March 12 and will shade some light on accessing public records and meetings.

We recognize Alan and Jerry for their tremendous work and are proud to have them as nominees for our OpenGov Champions initiative!

A timely post by our guest blogger Charlie Leck on the state of FOI in Minnesota. Earlier, Charlie wrote about the IPAD proposed bill and has since actively participated in state brainstorm meetings about the bill so he is back to offer conclusions and insights on how it's going to affect FOI in Minnesota -- in a good way.

At least, digging for government information doesn’t get any more difficult in Minnesota!

Freedom of Information Day in Minnesota will be celebrated up here on March 23. The John R. Finnegan Award will be presented and awarding-winning columnist Amy Goodman will speak. The ceremony is at 4 p.m. at the Hennepin County Library in Minneapolis (in Pohlad Hall). Goodman’s appearance is sponsored by the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MNCogi).

 Proposed changes in the Minnesota Freedom of Information Act are before the Legislature

In Minnesota, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is called the Data Practices Act and it is administered by a state agency called the Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD). In January, the organizations that are concerned about the individual’s rights to secure government information got a little nervous when IPAD announced that they were supporting a legislative proposal to amend our current law.

The established procedure up here for securing information from state government isn’t an easy one. It can sometimes take months and for an individual, with no staff resources, it can sometimes severely test one’s patience and mental toughness. So, I, as merely an interested individual who recognizes the vital importance of freedom of information to the whole democratic process, began watching the procedure closely and I nervously awaited IPAD’s initial drafts of the legislation. So did the major non-profit organizations and foundations that are concerned with this vital part of the democratic system.

Hats off to IPAD for making the procedure of following this legislative revision very easy! They provided regular updates to “stake holders” about what was happening and, very early, they made the suggested revisions available. They also held public workshops that allowed organizations and individuals to provide in-put. IPAD’s major concern was to hold the line on the cost of providing such information to the curious public. Budget concerns have been emphasized in Minnesota, as they have nearly everywhere, by the weaknesses in the economy.

Most think the IPAD revisions are going to work and will make the process of securing information quite a bit easier. Taking into account the current technology, the process of securing information will now be able to take advantage of on-line services. In other words, we’ll be able to get the information we seek on-line and/or in PDF formats. And, there will not be any of the expensive, and sometimes prohibitive, copying and production charges paid for “paper” copies when, instead, we secure that information on-line. That’s all the current legislative revisions amount to.

If you want to take a look at the law as it currently reads and the text of the revisions they can be found here (underlined items are the revisions).

The bill has not yet been passed. It is currently in the hearing process and will likely be voted on soon.

To make things easier for you, below is the text of the brief changes, all of which will be tacked on to the end of the current law…

(continuation of Section 1 of current law)… The responsible authority or designee of a government entity may comply with a request for inspection or copies of public government data, in whole or in part, by providing a link or links to a specific Web site that contains the requested data online. A government entity may only use this paragraph to comply with a request to inspect and/or copy government data if all of the following conditions are met: data are classified as public;

(2) data already exist online or are placed online immediately or within ten business days of the request;

(3) data are on a currently available and online public Web site;

(4) the responsible authority or designee provides links and instructions to each individual requester so that the requested data are easily accessible;

(5) other data not provided according to this paragraph and the government entity's response time to the data request are consistent with the requirements of sections 13.03 and 13.04; and

(6) no fee is charged for access to the data online.

(h) Upon request, a government entity that complies with a data request according to paragraph

(g) must inform the data requester if the online data are maintained in another electronic format and provide reasonable access to the alternative electronic

3.17 format through e-mail or another electronic delivery method. No fee may be charged for

3.18 providing the data in an alternative electronic format under this paragraph.

Less than a week away to Sunshine Week , a surprise attack on transparency in Kentucky is threatening to change the state’s Open Records Act. On February 28, Rep. Johnny Bell sponsored HB 496  -- a bill that will -- if approved, exclude private companies who have at least 25 percent of their revenue coming from public projects -- from Kentucky’s open records requests.

John Cheves of the Lexington Herald-Leader talked to Rep. Bell who assured him that he “respects the public’s right to know”. But it’s interesting that the same Representative sided with private companies in construction, highway building, engineering and architecture who are complaining about the time and money they waste on legal fees associated with public records requests.

Bluegrass Institute’s Logan Morford is reminding Rep. Bell and colleagues who they represent and that it -- the American public, including citizens seeking “sunshine” in Kentucky:

• Taxpayer money comes with strings attached whether it is spent by government or with private industry. Private companies take public money with this understanding. If you don’t want to be subject to open records laws, don’t take public money.

• Quasi-government agencies like the Kentucky League of Cities would still be subject to existing transparency laws. Government cannot choose winners and losers. In this respect they would be choosing which recipients of taxpayer money are to be held accountable and which are not. That is unacceptable.

• The legal fees that are too burdensome only come into play in one scenario: The records request is challenged. Costly and burdensome legal fees can be avoided by simply turning over records related to taxpayer money.

HB 496 is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday before the House State Government Committee. Here is to hoping all involved in voting on this bill will seriously consider the public’s right to know what their government is doing.

As Sunlight has covered before, California is one of the many states that is in dire need of transparency. A recently released report [pdf link] from the Pacific Research Institute offered up some policy recommendations after examining the situation. The free market think tank published their report during Sunshine Week and focused primarily on reforming open-records and open-meetings laws. The author of the report noted,

Recent incidents like the City of Bell pay scandal show that California’s open-records and open-meetings laws are in need of reform. Public pay is the public’s business, along with the debates, decisions, and actions of government and the outcomes of government policies.

In addition to looking at the widely publicized scandal in the city of Bell, the study compares open-government laws with other states using a number of scholarly rankings. According to the BGA-Alper Integrity Index of 2008, California ranks 45th for its open-meetings laws and 17th for its open-records laws. According to a database from the 2010 Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project (CAP), California ranked no better than a 5 (somewhat open) in any of the nine categories that pertain to open meetings and for open records, the state scored a 3 (somewhat closed) in 40 categories and a 2 (mostly closed) in 13 categories.

The Sunlight Foundation is enthusiastic to see more organizations spur discussions of open government and encourage brainstorming of solutions. Among the many policy recommendations, we were particularly excited to see the online posting of public meetings and minutes, as well as making records available online with all fees stated upfront.

After launching Sunshine Week with yesterday's successful Advisory Committee on Transparency event, it's a good time to reflect on positive transparency developments around the country (as opposed to yesterday's disheartening news).

Among the inspiring stories that we came across recently, Sunlight was particularly struck by the work of a software engineering class at Virginia Tech. As the Washington Post reported, a professor picked up on the students' desire to find their coursework relevant and dedicated a semester to build a mobile app for the university bus system. After a slew of prototypes and some extra funding, the impressive VT Bus Tracker debuted. It's important to note that this application was only possible with a willing and proactive partnership with the bus system operators.

In light of budget shortfalls around the country, many states have yielded to public pressure to open their books and are putting their financial information online. In the past few months both Indiana and New Hampshire launched 'Transparency Portals' that centralize state spending data. These websites have plenty of room for improvement, but the Sunlight Foundation is excited to see the states dip their toe into the growing community of public officials who recognize public information should be online.

Last week we were interested to watch developments in lobbying disclosure at the state level in Georgia. According to an article in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission is hoping to vastly expand the definition of a lobbyist and allow e-filing across the board -- both principles the Sunlight Foundation includes in our Real Time Online Lobbying Transparency Act. While the proposals in Georgia are hardly perfect, any serious deliberation of lobbying reform is admirable and the Sunlight Foundation encourages these discussions.

What other rays of sunshine are we missing? Tweet @sunfoundation or use the hashtag #sunchat to join us this Thursday for a special Sunshine Week twitter chat.

Next week, the nation will be celebrating the 7th annual Sunshine Week. Started by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and supported through a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation in Miami, Sunshine Week was a response to a growing need to create public awareness of a trend that was damaging democracy by keeping public information secret from citizens. As part of this celebration of open government, Sunlight’s Policy Counsel, Daniel Shuman, will be moderating an Advisory Committee on Transparency in an event dubbed “Washington Lobbying Fix”. We also rounded up a few events happening at the state and local level for Sunshine Week...

CALIFORNIA: The Northern California Association of Law Libraries (NOCALL) and the League of Women Voters will be holding an event on March 23 to mark Sunshine Week at McGeorge School of Law. The event, which will happen just after the official national Sunshine Week (March 13-19), will give residents a chance to view the webcast from the national event while allowing them to participate in a panel discussion on open government.

MISSOURI: The Missouri Sunshine Coalition have partnered with Open Missouri to host an annual meeting and Sunshine Week celebration at the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri campus in Columbia, Missouri on March 17. The event will also include an annual board election, a report on the Coalition's statewide records audit and a presentation of the coalition's nominees for Sunshine Hero awards. Our very own Editorial Director Bill Allison will be delivering a key note address about how journalists can tap into government data. Interested participants are encouraged to register here

VIRGINIA: The Virginia Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit “alliance formed to promote expanded access togovernment records, meetings and other proceedings at the state and local level” have created an audio public announcement and is encouraging the public to download it as anawareness campaign for the public’s right to know.

ILLINOIS: In Illinois, the Peoria Journal Star asked their readers to send in stories of how the revised Freedom of Information Act law has affected them in dealing with governmental entities. As a way of observing Sunshine Week, the stories will be published on pjstar.com while some may be published in the Journal Star.

OKLAHOMA: Freedom of Information Oklahoma will be hosting its fourth annual conference for sunshine week on March 12. Dubbed “Putting Muscle Behind Oklahoma’s FOI Laws,” the day long event includes a training for the public on how to use public records and a discussion on bills that require the legislature to comply with FOI laws. Open government guru Robert Freeman is the key note speaker.

NORTH CAROLINA: The city of Cary, North Carolina is providing educational opportunities for staff and elected officials as a way of increasing awareness of “Sunshine laws” during Sunshine Week. The city has also updated its website to help citizens access public records and answer queries on how to submit public records requests. In addition, an audio message from the city’s mayor Harold Weinbrecht has been uploaded to the website to show the progress the city is making in open government.

NEW YORK: The Town of Wappinger in Duchess County, New York will be hosting an open government seminar on March 15 with Robert Freeman of the New York Senate Open Government Committee as speaker. Town Clerk Chris Masterson will be on hand to help interested participants to register and submit their questions to Freeman. The town’s website has more.

ARIZONA: The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in Phoenix, Arizona has organized a fun and informative way of opening government: a public records scavenger hunt. The school is inviting journalism students to take part in a hunt for public records and you can read more about it here.