This afternoon, the Montgomery County Council voted unamimously in favor Bill 23-12, the Mongtomery County Open Data Act of 2012. Through this law, the county plans to release new data sets, develop a single web portal linked to the county’s homepage, and, more interestingly, charge the Chief Administrative Officer to create an implementation plan for defining agency participation and compliance.

The councilmembers behind this bill clearly did their homework, and we’re glad to see that so many best practices outlined in Sunlight's Open Data Policy Guidelines made their way into Montgomery’s approach, particularly when it comes to data licensing and re-use (2-154(f)) and how the open data bill will intersect with relevant existing laws, like Maryland’s Public Information Act (2-159). These measures are thoughtful and equally important additions to the bill's more classic provisions, such as the creation of a county open data portal (2-154), the choice of open technical standards (2-157), and the requirement for new datasets to be released (2-154).

Originally, the bill included more best practices, such as specific guidance for how agencies should prioritize data (leaning towards disclosure in the public interest -- good choice) and required that the County not just release “some” data (as it stands now), but that each County agency release one dataset. These and other provisions were ultimately removed and amended by the County Executive to fall under an Open Data Implementation Plan that would be directed by the Chief Administrative Officer (though ultimately put to the Council for approval).

Effective open data policies are all about balance: Too much aspirational vision with too little practical guidance for funding and implementation and the wheels fall off. The same can be said for policies that swing in the other direction, opting to be overly specific about open formats and technology systems, without consideration for the leaps in technical improvements and analytic needs that will come when the technology of today is outdated (and the companies contracted have long closed their doors and shut down their servers).

These tensions are reflected in the Montgomery Implementation Plan, which is strung between the County’s ambition to be more open and provide greater public access to information, and the County’s need to deliver on its promises. On one hand, the Plan offers an opportunity for stability by empowering the Executive to ensure sufficient funding, staffing, and compliance to follow through on the bill. On the other, if not drafted in public or infused with measures for accountability, the Implementation Plan runs the risk of dampening the ambitious goals of the Open Data Bill to serve the needs of bureaucracy. (One of a few "slippery slope" concerns that also show up in review of the bill’s overly exclusive definition of data (2-153) and overbroad timeline (2-158).)

That’s all to say, while such a tack may not be appropriate in all open data policy contexts, its development in Montgomery County will be something to watch. A binding regulation like this, if properly open to public feedback, could be a long-run antidote to some of the problems developed in “open” legislation and executive orders modelled too closely on the Open Government Directive, a federal plan that inspired a wave of agency plans and very little open data (or accountability, for that matter). Then again, it could just repeat them.

Very few counties have entered into the fray of open data policy-making. We're encouraged to see our neighbors ("MoCo" is located just north of DC) take on this task and look forward to watching its development.

This post was written by Policy Fellow Matt Rumsey. A version was cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington where Matt is a contributor. 

Washington, DC has a unique form of hyper local government.  Advisory Neighborhood Commissions  are psuedo-legislative bodies that represent neighborhood clusters and weigh in on a variety of local issues and provide constituent services. ANCs are made up of single member districts with each commissioner representing around 2,000 residents. There are currently 37 Commissions spread across the city.

The chairman of one of these commissions stole about $30,000 from his ANC last year. DC agencies struggle to provide enough oversight of dysfunctional ANCs. The District can start to increase accountability and transparency by making ANC financial reports available online.

ANCs must provide the DC Auditor with quarterly financial reports. The DC Auditor is responsible for auditing the financial information, maintaining a database of the information, and ensuring that the reports are in compliance.

It would be a small step to also make this information readily available to the public. 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.

Under the current system, the DC government is not providing the resources required for adequate oversight. The size and scope of the ANC system outweighs the resources dedicated to overseeing it. The DC Auditor has many other responsibilities and the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, charged with administrating ANCs, only has two full-time staff members.

With financial information effectively hidden from the public, it takes extremely diligent individuals significant effort and time to uncover improper or missing information. In September 2011, the Washington Times discovered that the DC auditor approved ANC financial reports that were missing basic information, proper signatures, or evidence of tax deductions. The Times also reported that the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions doesn't maintain records from the ANCs.

In the ANC 5B scandal, the DC Auditor initiated an audit after failing to receive financial reports for 3 consecutive quarters. The DC auditor currently posts a list detailing if and when ANCs submitted their financial reports.

If the database were available online, the public could have more easily and quickly found out about the DC Auditor's and the ANCs' failings, without having to rely on intrepid reporters sifting through hidden data.

Making this database available online should not place an undue burden on individual ANCs or the DC Auditor. But it will allow the press and public to better scrutinize these elected officials. Knowing that their records are easily available to the public may also encourage ANCs to follow proper financial procedure.

The ANC system is due for change. Putting these documents online would be a small step in the right direction.

When you think about your typical advocate for government transparency, who comes to mind? I bet lawyers, bloggers, teachers, Tea Partyers, maybe even environmental activists, but not artists. Right? For many, the connection between artists and the government -- let alone the governing process -- is unclear, but the reality is that government decisions have a direct impact on the creative community, and artists know it. Our federal government and most local and state governments provide specific agency support for the arts and humanities and make important budgetary decisions about programming and grant-funding that effects the work of individual artists, curators and entrepreneurs.

Although many communities (and most states) have arts advocacy groups that tackle promotion of arts-friendly policies and funding, DC (Sunlight’s home “state”) is one of the only places I know of where the advocates pair their message with one close to our heart: Transparency. The DC Advocates for the Arts (DCAA) believe that a transparent process is essential to their work: How can you advocate for increased funding in an upcoming fiscal year or provide recommendations for compromises and reallocation of resources if you can’t even see the budget in question? As the DCAA wrote in their primer for DC Arts Advocacy Day 2011:

In order to achieve the most effective policies, for today and for tomorrow, the DC Advocates for the Arts support ongoing initiatives in Government Transparency. We specifically support availability of information “before the fact.” Not all government work can be released in process, but transparency “after the fact” prevents public input, and reduces public participation. We ask that the District make public the programming and granting program budgets for Arts and Humanities support in the District, and encourage public input in any revisions of those programs.

Now, full disclosure, I've received funding from the DC Commission for the Arts & Humanities and sit on the board of the DC Advocates, but these principles of transparency were on the DCAA docket before I got involved. Robert Bettmann, the DCAA’s chair, has been a long-time TransparencyCamp attendee and I’d like to think that Arts Advocacy Day 2012, slated for next week (March 14th), was planned to fall smack-dab in the middle of Sunshine Week (a national celebration of government transparency) for a reason.

“Transparency” is not a single issue. It’s a civic issue. Whether you’re an artist or a miner or a political blogger or a full-time developer or hunter or homicide reporter, how the government does its job -- and whether we, the citizens, are brought into the process and shown how the sausage gets made -- counts. That’s why Sunlight is proud to partner with other local groups in DC Arts Advocacy Day and why we invite you to join us:

DC Arts Advocacy Day

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Wilson Building (the District’s city hall)

We’ll post with more details as we have them, but for now, you can find out more information about DC Arts Advocacy (and register to attend!) here.

Whether you identify as a DC local or work as a "Washingtonian" in the DMV, if you care about open government, Arts Advocacy Day is a unique opportunity to stand with creatives and send a message to DC’s local government about the power of sunlight in the budget process. Hope to see you there.

Although we preach the importance of public meetings, we recognize that there are some legitimate frustrations to be had with their openness. For instance, a lot of public meetings are boring. And long. And, critics are right: public meetings aren’t necessarily the best format for every single deliberation made by a governing body.

But most of these “issues” are besides the point. As our Policy guy, John, noted, the need for public meetings doesn’t mean that every conversation needs to happen in public, but that all the official meetings should. That’s the basis behind our push to open up the meetings of the “Super Committee” -- the body created by Congress to deal with our national debt -- and an important factor to consider in the arrests made at a DC local gov meeting in June.

I wrote about the event shortly after it happened, but the quick version goes like this: Two reporters were arrested by Park Police at a Taxicab Commission public meeting at the request of members of the commission: the first for taking photographs of the meeting. The second, for filming the arrest of the first. The charge? Disorderly conduct and unlawful entry...which, at a public meeting (and with video evidence of how they actually acted), is absurd. Thankfully, the charges have since been dropped and there’s been a lot of conversation about the future of the Taxicab Commission (Council Member Tommy Wells wants to scrap it, local blogger David Alpert wants to reform it), but there's been little conversation about the impact of this event on DC’s public meetings law.

The gray zone in this issue is that DC’s Open Meetings Act doesn’t actually specify whether or not meetings can be photographed or recorded. But, as the DC Open Government Coalition pointed out, “The absence of an explicit statutory mandate to allow recordings of open meetings does not translate into a prohibition [of recordings].”

Following pressure from the media and advocacy groups like the DC Open Government Coalition and the National Press Photographers Association, on August 1st the Taxicab Commission issued a revised policy on public attendance, behavior, and recording during meetings:

Pursuant to section 742 (the “Open Meetings Act”) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act ... all meetings and hearings of the Commission are open to the public. Also, a recording (or transcript) of the proceedings will be made available to the public free of charge. A member of the public, including any representative of the media, may record or photograph the proceedings of the Commission at an open meeting by means of a tape recorder or any other recording device so long as the person does not impede the orderly conduct of the meeting, by, for instance, creating excessive noise that impairs the ability of others to hear the proceeding or using excessively bright artificial light.

The policy goes on to review all the ways the commission does not have to support public recordings, but open government activists in America’s littlest state should still take heart. Perhaps this renewed policy will set a precedent for the broader Open Meetings Act, or will at least inspire District residents and activists to advocate for one. In their statement about the Taxicab Commission debacle, the DC Open Government Coalition highlighted the fact that the role of director for DC’s Open Government Office has been vacant for almost 4 months. The office, they note, was established as the public’s primary means of enforcing the Open Meetings Act and funding for the Office has already been provided.

Filling this office is a step DC can take to show their commitment to open government and to reduce the “burden” of meeting citizens’ requirements for greater transparency. DC is by no means the only governing body wrestling to adjust to the increased demands on and attention paid to its public meeting and public records laws: this sort of news is making headlines all across the country. The important thing is that, going forward, DC and other governments do find ways to adapt to the Age of the Interwebs and the increasing expectations constituents have for public access -- and that they take advantage of the free tools (YouTube...) and advocacy groups out there offering help.

*Photo credit: matthewgriff, via Flickr.

The National Governors Association (NGA) will be holding their 103rd annual meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah - July 15th through 17th. According to their website, the state leaders will be meeting to discuss education, innovation and competitiveness. Here at Sunlight, we would like to take the same opportunity to address an equally important issue - open government. A call to the NGA’s Communications office to see if I can be given access to the agenda of the meeting, revealed that it was not available for the public “because their meetings are private” -- unless if you are an attendee or a governor. So as you and I are neither, we will just have to wait and hope that the agenda will be made public AFTER the meeting.

It is ironic that this year’s venue for the NGA meeting is Utah. Not so long ago, the state’s governor, Gary Herbert, passed HB477 - a controversial law that altered treasured public access legislation, restricting access to records about the state senate, imposed punitive fees and created waiting periods for anyone requesting information. In March 2011, after learning about this bill and noting a trend of similar transparency rollbacks around the country, we decided to launch the Open Letter to Governors campaign. Although we emphasized activity in Utah , Maine, Tenneesse, Florida and Wisconsin, we framed our letter with a message to all governors, from all citizens: Transparency is not a campaign promise.

Today, we explore how these open government issues have played out in the states we highlighted earlier and what new issues have cropped up from governors’ offices in other states.

Colorado:

All call records made by Governor John Hickenlooper on his cell phone, including those concerning his office, are exempted from disclosure under the state’s public records laws. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press wrote that this could become a disturbing trend as other public officials may start making public calls while using their private cell phones.

Florida:

Contradicting his earlier efforts to make Florida government more open and transparent, Governor Rick Scott signed an executive order that now imposes a fee for public records. This move contrasts with the former governors’ policy (who explicitly did not charge for public records), slows down the process for receiving information, and restricts how much the public gets to know.

Illinois:

A bill that would drastically change the way government responds to public records requests, is being considered by Governor Pat Quinn. Sponsored by Don Harmon, HB1716 will amend the Freedom of Information Act by authorizing charges to people requesting records for the actual cost of retrieving and transporting said records from an off-site storage facility. The bill will also affect citizen watchdogs, individuals and free lance journalists by delaying responses to their requests. It has already been approved by both the Illinois House and Senate and Governor Quinn has 60 days to review it.

Louisiana:

Louisiana Senate rejected a bill that would have opened up more of the public records from Governor Bobby Jindal’s office. In 2009, the governor created a “deliberative process” exemption to prevent the public from accessing the state’s budgetary records under the guise of maintaining his ability to get “candid advice” on financial issues. Now, the governor is using deliberative processes to bar the public from seeing information between him and his staff including his emails and phone records.

Montana:

Unfazed by the U. S. Public Interest Research Groups report that gave Montana an F for state transparency, Governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed a bill that would have created a website with information on the state’s budget and spending. The governor, who claimed that state legislators are already publishing the same information on their individual websites, added that the cost of creating new sites could not be covered by the state.

Tennessee:

Governor Bill Haslam, who has repeatedly stated how important it is to let the public know where a public official’s income is coming from, continues to not disclose how much he is earning in outside income. The governor, who threw out outside income disclosure requirements through an executive order he signed early this year, also made sure that his top aides were exempted from disclosing their outside income. The governor has also made unprecedented delays in responding to public records requests made by the Associated Press - and when he did fulfill the requests, the documents he sent did not contain the information the AP asked for.

Washington State:

Thanks to a recent superior court ruling, Governor Chris Gregoire is now above the state’s Public Records Act. The Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan think tank based in Washington, filed a lawsuit against the governor after discovering that she had been using her executive privilege to shield emails, memos, and other documents to other agencies that had been legally requested. The governor won her case by arguing that is would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to tell the governor how to disclose public records.

Wisconsin:

He may have made a show of trying to back up his public statement with public records, but Governor Scott Walker demonstrates that he can still roll back on transparency with the best of them. Earlier this year, the governor passed a controversial bill after midnight, robbing the public the right to see what was going on. Soon after, the governor passed another bill in the dead of the night after he vowed that his first midnight passage would be his last - again stripping the public of a chance to see how their government operates.

What is happening in your state? How is your governor responding to open government issues? We encourage you to take active participation in the way you are being governed and ask for openness from your leaders. Share your stories in the comments.

Here at the Sunlight Foundation mothership, when we talk about local, we tend to be talking about the issues faced by folks outside of the Beltway - challenges close to home that you’re tackling in New Hampshire, Utah, and elsewhere. But, given that we’re based in DC, we’re not exempt from paying attention to transparency issues that happen close to our home, either.

Take, for instance, the recent events that went down at a public meeting on Wednesday. Two reporters were arrested by US Park Police officers (!) at a Taxi Commission meeting: the first, Peter Tucker of thefightback.org, for taking photographs. The second, Reason TV’s Jim Epstein, for video-taping the arrest of the first.

Officers were directed to make the arrests by a member of the Commission’s staff. The Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis and John Kelly report that,

Earlier in the meeting, Tucker said, [interim chair of the Taxi Commission, Dena] Reed objected when he placed a microphone near her seat; he was told to place it some distance away. Previous commission meetings, he said, have included signs notifying attendees that no photographs [sic] or recordings are allowed.

Despite reports (and video) that Tucker and Epstein did nothing to disturb the meeting, the two men were arrested for “disorderly conduct and unlawful entry”...”Unlawful entry” of a public meeting. Business Insider reports that the reporters could be sentenced to nine months in jail and $1,250 in fines. All this, again, for recording a public meeting.

Sadly, DC is not among the states included in that lists every state’s open records and meeting’s laws, but you can read the law that’s on DC’s books here: D.C. Open Meetings Act. As Debonis and Kelly note, although the law requires meetings of governmental bodies to be open to the public, it does not specifically address whether photographs or video recordings are permitted.

Public meetings are a big open government issue all around the country: You can’t get more basic transparency than having one’s government literally open the doors to let citizens in to listen to its dealings. But Tucker and Epstein’s experience highlights an important tension between government and technology: Not everyone can take time off to attend meetings of interest. Making public meetings truly accessible to the public means putting record of it online where the public can access it with as much detail (and data) as possible. The DC law may not explicitly provide for this level of public accessibility, but that doesn’t meant that they should throttle attempts by members of the press or public to do so.

Take a look for yourself at the arrests of the reporters below. We’ll post an update when there’s more news.

The Open Government Dialogue, a product of the National Academy of Public Administration stresses the importance of increasing the quality and quantity of citizenry enagement in local government: using the bottom-up approach. The idea is not to solicit the quantity of citizen engagement, but also the quality of their understanding of major issues.  We should move from 'my backyard' concept and get involved in sustained local programs that maintain our interest and ensure better contributions on how we can improve them. Indeed we could start by looking at our local leaders for ways to engage them in dialogue, just as Laurie Masterson did...

• When Laurie Masterson set out to find facts behind a salary hike of a new government hire, she instead got the skinny on the Arkansas House budget down-sizing. Now Masterson is demonstrating how citizens can be engaged in the activities of their local governments. See how she lays out the steps to take when you come across transparency related issues concerning leaders in your community. More on American Majority.

• A new rule is improving fiscal transparency in Texas: a 48 hour layout before senators have to vote on a summary of the final budget agreement. After failing to increase the number of days in which the senate has to review bills from two to five, Senator Kirk Watson hopes that this new rule will be a good compromise and bring more sunshine into the Texas budget proses. Curt Olson has more on the Texas Budget Source.

• Art Pedroza, the founder of the first political blog in Orange County, California, is raising a contentious issue in the city of Santa Ana. In his “When does the call for more transparency at city hall become stalking?” he questions whether some information about public officials should be made public. While he praises the usefulness of posting council meetings online, he cautions us to use discretion in our requests for public officials’ information. See more on New Santa Ana.

• The first week of the Hawaii legislative session is already revealing some flaws. As John Temple points out, the current legislature, ethics and lack of transparency are making it impossible for citizens to know about their lawmakers’ conflicts of interest as they make decisions on public policy. While comparing how Hawaii ethics laws are faring alongside laws in other states, Temple references Robert Brown’s article,  which suggests that this may be because information about lawmakers’ source of income is not available on the government’s website. See how he questions government officials’ commitment to transparency while providing a forum for Hawaiians and lawmakers to discuss issues affecting them on Civil Beat.

• The Oregon Department of Administrative Services is updating their transparency website with 2010 budget information. As a member of the Transparency Oregon Advisory Commission, Jon Bartholomew shows how the website is going to make government spending more transparent. Throw in your two cents on how it can improve at Blue Oregon.

Sunlight gave Code for America its very first grant (a mere $10,000) and served as its fiscal sponsor while it organized itself.  We are amazed and pleased by the enormous progress they have made in the last 15 months.  They have a really ambitious program planned for next year and tomorrow you can tune in to the webinar they have planned (Tuesday, November 16th, 2010) at 1 pm PST/4 pm EST. It should be a great opportunity to learn more about who they are and what they're up to.

For those of you who don't know, Code for America is a project to foster better city governments by forming a more perfect union between talented and innovative developers with motivated cities. We're really excited to see the inaugural class of fellows that was announced a few weeks ago. Jennifer Pahlka, founder and executive director of Code for America, recently announced the fellows with this introduction:

Out of a pool of over 360 amazing applicants, these 20 stood out for their talent, experience, and passion. They will be the first participants in our experiment to help city governments better leverage the power of the web. Starting in January, it will be their challenge to not only build innovative apps for each of our cities, but also become the leaders of the ongoing movement to make government more open and efficient. Having gotten to know each of them over the past few months, I can assure you that they can and they will. I hope you’re as excited as we are to see what together they can accomplish.

[image via Code for America's Binary Art]