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

• In DC, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) must provide the DC Auditor with quarterly financial reports. The DC Auditor audits financial information, maintains a database of the information, and ensures that the reports are in compliance. Sunlight’s own Matt Rumsey thinks they should disclose this information to the public, maintaining, “It would be a small step to also make this information readily available to the public.” Rumsey provides a clear plan for how this could be done: “The press and interested members of the public could then monitor the ANC financial reports and identify mistakes, omissions, and inconsistencies that may have been missed.” Because of their lack of financial report disclosure, it “takes extremely diligent individuals significant effort and time to uncover improper or missing information.” For his entire take, see his post on Greater Greater Washington. 
• Sunland Park, New Mexico recently had a tumultuous mayoral election that ended with a criminal investigation for voting fraud, bribery, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. After the contested election,  the Sun-News filed a public records act request to obtain a list of donors who contributed to the campaign. However, Sunland Park doesn't require campaign finance reports to be filed by candidates. Phil Banks of Common Cause of Southern New Mexico worries that the lack of disclosure will cause elected officials to “take action to advance their contributors' interests.” He maintains, “the obvious thing is just simply the fact that individuals who contribute — especially large amounts of money — to campaigns generally expect some reciprocity as a result. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be favoritism. It leads to the appearance of it being inappropriate, but it's not always." Banks confirmed that Common Cause is forming a Las Cruces-appointed panel to revise its campaign fundraising rules. The city is currently seeking two community members to serve on the panel. For more information, see Diana Alba Soular’s post on Las Cruces Sun News. 

• In January, Torrance County commissioners flirted with an Open Meetings Law violation by trying to pass a resolution banning public recording of their hearings. While this resolution was curbed, they recently introduced a proposal that will make it harder for citizens record hearings. The resolution calls for 24 hours written notice for any recording of meetings, requires cameras to be pointed only at commissioners, and requires citizens who srecord meetings to stay in a  designated area. According to commissioner Lonnie Freyburger, “We were getting interrupted and different things and there was editing being done on the YouTube and we wanted to get a true and accurate recording of what was going on.” The commissioners are discussing making a county record of all hearings available on their website. However,  Gwyneth Doland of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government  maintains, “... that does not — and should not — preclude the right of members of the public and the media from recording Torrance County commission meetings that are held in a public facility paid for with county taxpayer dollars.” For the whole story, check out Rob Nikolewski’s post on New Mexico Watchdog.
• Gainesville Citizens CARE filed a lawsuit to annul a $3 billion Power Purchase Agreement contract negotiated by Gainesville Regional Utilities  and approved by the Gainesville City Council for a 100 megawatt biomass incinerator proposed by American Renewables. The lawsuit alleges  that “the contract negotiated behind closed doors in violation of the Sunshine Law be declared void and without legal effect.” According to Josh Schlossberg, “changes allegedly made in secret, without public disclosure, include an extension of the contract from 20 to 30 years, a cost increase of 25%, and the removal of a ‘back door out clause’ that would’ve allowed ‘the contract to be cancelled after its last regulatory approval and before the commencement of construction.’” For the whole story, check out his post on No Biomass Burning.

Some 24 states followed Florida in putting Stand Your Ground laws on their books, at least ten of which are nearly identical to the measure that’s gained national attention after George Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., last month and was not arrested because he said he was acting out of self-defense.

In 2005, Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law, which offers legal immunity to individuals who use deadly force when they believe they are being threatened by another. The National Rifle Association pushed the legislation through state legislatures across the country as an expansion of the nation's gun rights laws.

After Florida passed its law, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) adopted its legislative language as one of the model bills it proposes to legislators across the country on behalf of its member associations, in this case the NRA.

A Sunlight Foundation analysis using automated textual analysis  found that not only are the laws similar, but at least 10 of  the states based their legislation on nearly identical bills to the one Florida passed and ALEC adopted.

Because some states do not make the original legislation available online, there could be even more states that used what became an ALEC model bill to guide their legislation.

The analysis was able to detect striking similarities and identical phrases across multiple bills, including the phrase, “[a] person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm …,” which is just one of the provisions of the law that is intended to protect people who may have killed another person from being arrested or prosecuted.

Michigan’s House Bill 5153 that passed the state legislature in 2006 was the most similar to Florida’s bill, according to the analysis. When compared to the Florida bill it returned the highest rate of matches than any other bill did at 146 fragments matched. The state bill with the lowest matching rate to Florida was Mississippi Senate Bill 2426 at 20 matching fragment counts.

The ten states that were revealed to have varying degrees of similarities to the Florida bill are:

• Michigan
• South Carolina
• West Virginia
• Kentucky
• Oklahoma
• Tennessee
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming
• Kansas
• Mississippi

The NRA hasn’t commented on the Martin case specifically, but has said the Stand Your Ground law is good legislation and to call it otherwise would be a mistake.

Florida State officials have said that it will be more difficult to prosecute the shooter, George Zimmerman, if they decide to do so, because of the law.

Breanna Edwards contributed to 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!

To highlight the anniversary of January 2010's Citizens United decision, all of this month's weekly roundups will  take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. First up, bloggers who represent the primary states:

• Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is pushing for a bill that would limit the amount of money corporations can contribute to a political campaign. He maintains that “This bill that we are pushing would amend the Constitution to basically say that money is not speech.” While she sees the proposed bill  as a step in the right direction, Lydia Waddington of the Iowa Independent has her doubts,pointing out that “in a Congress that has been loathe to pass meaningful legislation, the idea that any joint resolution to amend the Constitution could gain enough bipartisan traction to reach the two-thirds majority it needs in both chambers is, to be blunt, laughable — something Harkin and the bill’s other 14 supporters openly recognize.” Harkin agrees that the bill’s passing is unlikely, but maintains, “I think as we go into the campaign next year, and as people see more and more of these distorted ads, which the candidates have no control over — you are going to see all of these devastating ads on candidates and where they stand and all of that, paid for by some bogus group. And the Supreme Court has given them a shield so that they don’t even have to say where [the money] comes from.” Marybeth Gardam, Iowa organizer for a grassroots organization Move to Amend feels that the bill falls short, saying, “This [proposal] addresses the ‘money is not speech’ piece of it, but it does not address the ‘corporation is not a person’ piece of it. And as long as they have that right — which they got very illegitimately in the 1880s — they will be able to use that power against ‘we the people.”

• David Shlutz post on MinnPost.com emphasizes the changes Citizens United ruling brings to state and local political campaigns in Minnesota. He maintains that, “Besides making it possible for corporations to make unlimited express advocacy expenditures in races for governor, the other constitutional offices, and the state Legislature, they will be free to do the same for local races such as city council and mayoral races. Citizens United also enable corporate express advocacy in judicial elections. He suggests a number of policy decisions to ensure that laws are being properly followed, for instance, Minnesota could mandate that any corporate expenditure must be disclosed at the time it is made.
• In their continued protests against Citizens United, Occupy Orlando took their message to Florida senator Gary Siplin’s office “to present a formal letter asking for his support to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.” The Occupy Orlando action is being launched in conjunction with the national Move to Amend campaign, that seeks to “end the illegitimate legal doctrines that prevent the American people from governing ourselves.” Move to Amend maintains that the Citizens United ruling granted corporations the same rights as natural persons, “entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.” For the whole story, read Virginia Chamlee’s post on The American Independent.

• In Iowa, a forthcoming Surpreme Court decision will soon clarify the Citizens United ruling and how it might be interpreted. In September of 2010, Iowa Right to Life filed a complaint in the Southern District of Iowa challenging the constitutionality of Iowa campaign-finance laws maintaining  that Iowa’s new laws–which were enacted in the wake of Citizens United–are still too burdensome for organizations making independent expenditures who are not registered as political action committees. Iowa Right to Life argued that Iowa’s new rules impose PAC-like obligations on all organizations making independent expenditures of more than $750, and that these rules violate the First Amendment.  The State argued that the rules do no such thing, and thus there is no constitutional problem.  Chief Judge Pratt agreed with the State, but concluded that he is “generally without authority to construe or narrow state statutes.” For more information and an update on the forthcoming ruling, see Ryan Koopmans’ post on On Brief.

Connect with other transparency bloggers in this Transparency Bloggers Google group   and see what others are doing in the transparency movement by joining this Citizens for Open Government Google Group.

• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has made good on his campaign promise to increase his own transparency by launching a new website called CitizenConnect. This website provide citizens with details about his schedule and allows them to conduct online town halls with him. Jimmy Veilkind has been critical of Cuomo's transparency record in the past and sees this as a step in the right direction. Cuomo hopes the site will provide “an open forum for New Yorkers to interact and participate in their government.” Find out more on Veilkind's take on the new website at Capitol Confidential.

• According to a study done by The Sunshine Review, a nonprofit that uses a transparency checklist to evaluate state and local government websites, the state of Florida has a B grade for online transparency. Despite several Florida county websites receiving A+ grades for online transparency, the overall grade average was weighed down by the low marks given to the state website MyFlorida.com. The site earned a B due to its tough-to-navigate search function, not providing information on state-paid lobbying and agency lobbying contracts, and not providing "comprehensive information" for making public records requests. Find out more about Katie Sanders' take on Florida's ranking at the Miami Herald Naked Politics Blog.

• Cook County, Illinois just launched an online open county data catalog. For its template, Cook County used the Model Local Open Government Directive, which was designed to fill a need for open government policies  expressed at CityCamp Colorado. Bryan Gryth, Vice-President and Director of Colorado Smart Communities maintains, “Today is a good day for open government and the citizens of Cook County because they have a more transparent county government and that transparency will hopefully lead to a more informed citizenry that can hold their government accountable.” Check out Sebsatian James' take on the  campaign on the Cook County Blog.

• San Francisco's oldest municipal Sunshine Ordinance was established and extended thanks to the San Francisco Bay Guardian.  They are now reporting that enforcement of this ordinance was left to an ethics commission that simply would not discipline recalcitrant officials, thus leaving the task force powerless to give citizens the openness they have a right to. She maintains that this oversight allows government departments to lie about embarrassing public records with little impunity. See why Terry Francke describes the Sunshine Ordinance as a "cloud of inaction" at CalAware Today.

Whether it is a top-down issue or the other way round, we can not help but notice a disconnect between what Florida's Governor -- Rick Scott preaches and what he practices. Earlier this year, one of his top aides avoided using emails, because they create a paper trail. And the mixed messages ranging from designing Florida Has a Right to Know , to imposing fees on public records that were previously free, are not helping.

• A private company that provided e-mail services for Governor Rick Scott’s transitional administration “accidentally” deleted all emails from the Florida governor-elect's office soon after he took office. Peter Schorsch is wondering whether this was a genuine accident considering the governor’s disregard for open government laws. See how he equates it to the ‘dog ate my homework’ situation on SaintPetersblog.

• The city of Laurel in Maryland has amended their background check law on all candidates vying for city council office. After consulting with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the city’s mayor Craig Moe, said the original law was meant to increase transparency to the election process but now feels that conducting a background check could be considered discriminatory. Gordon Basichis notes one plausible aspect of the amendment law; which is the immediate removal from office, of anyone convicted of a crime while in office. Read on at Corra Daily Planet.

• Campaign finance laws in Fulton County, Georgia could soon see some change. A resolution created to stop any corporation, officer, agent or individual making campaign contributions or gifts from seeking county contracts, is under consideration by the county’s Board of Commissioners. Already proposed in Indiana, and found problematic in Colorado, the new resolution seeks to regulate conduct of campaign financing and contributions. Stefan Passantio is screaming “fire” about this “pay-to-play” ordinance so head on over to the Pay to Play Law blog to see why.

• Citizens in New Mexico will now be able to access complaints against police officers under a new ruling by the state’s Supreme Court. Alicia Feichtmeir, an attorney in litigation and dispute resolution shares that information contained in the citizens’ complaints belong to the citizen in question regardless of whether or not the allegations made a true or false. See how she compares this ruling to the Washington’s Public Record’s Act on Local Open Government Blog.

• John Knutsen a Puyallup, Washington Councilmember was awarded a key award by the Washington Coalition for Open Government for opting out of informal discussions that happen outside of the scheduled council meetings. The informal meetings, also known as rolling meetings are used by some councilmembers in groups of two to three to discuss official issues, without the burden of notifying the public. For more on how open government supporters are praising the Councilmember’s action as a transparency effort, see Puyallup NOW.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections there is no race drawing more attention than the Republican primary between Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio. Crist and Rubio are locked in an ideological battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Crist representing the moderate wing and Rubio riding the wave of conversative energy powered by the Tea Parties. This split hasn't stopped either one from raising a lot of money from varying sources. What may be interesting is what interests powered their rise in the Sunshine State and which individuals are currently contributing to both of them. Thanks to TransparencyData.com, we can rapidly determine this.

TransparencyData.com allows rapid searches and download of campaign finance data from both the federal and state levels over the past 20 years. Both Rubio and Crist have a wealth of state-level campaign finance data to examine. Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000-2008 and Crist served as Florida's Attorney General from 2003-2007 and has occupied the office of governor since 2007.

You can quickly download Rubio's contributions at both the federal and state levels here. Crist's--of which there are a lot more than Rubio--are available to download here. I should note that the most recent campaign hauls by both candidates are not currently available. Take a look at these and do what you will. I'm sure that there is a ton of information to be collected and let me know what's interesting, especially the state-level data.

I pulled together all of the donors that have contributed to both the Crist and Rubio Senate campaigns. You can see them in the table below:

Every week I climb into the depths of the local political blogosphere to find the Sunlight. I use this series to highlight local blogs that do a great job of covering local, state, and congressional political news.  This week I have highlights from Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas.

In Alabama, Left in Alabama highlights a scandal about Attorney General Troy King’s apparent conflict of interest.  Apparently King went to a party thrown by a developer and then three months later his office issued a legal opinion that said the developer could get a bingo permit for their upcoming project.  According to the author this isn't the first time King has been entertained by a special interest.  Alabama Power apparently treated King to a few luxury box baseball tickets back in 2006.

Florida Politics is copying a great idea started by Aldon Hynes in Connecticut.  He created a newswire “where the various state agencies, municipalities, state legislators, advocacy organizations, etc., could send their press releases and the like.”  This is a great idea a one stop shop for public relations people to send there info and for bloggers to get it.

In Hawaii, ILind.net has a post about the two special advisories that the State Ethics Commission had.  Apparently there had been complaints filed about legislators receiving free tickets to events from non profits.  The commission advised that taking these gifts would violate state ethics laws.

Kentucky’s The Bridge, uses Party Time to keep track of  what fundraisers Congresspeople are attending.  It is a pretty decent list of where their members of Congress will be.

Pennsylvania’s Keystone Politics has two interesting stories. The first one is a post about how four elected judges in Northampton County have presided over cases that involved a donor to their election campaign. Apparently the decision for what a conflict of interest is, is left to the judges to decided, so they don't have to recuse themselves if a donor appears before them.  This brings up whether the rules should be changed to require judges to recuse themselves if a donor is involved or if you want a favorable outcome you should make some quick campaign donations.

The second story is about former state democratic house leader Bill DeWeese who gave bonuses to his staff, who then donated that amount or close to that amount back to his campaign.

Capitol Annex, in Texas, talks about a bill that would give bloggers the same protection main stream media gets.  This allows bloggers to cover "matters of 'public concern,' such as legislative proceedings, school board meetings, and the actions of state officials" and not be sued for libel.  The author and a few other bloggers successfully testified, in favor of the bill, to the committee and seemed confident he received a fair hearing.