• In Georgia, Cumming Mayor Ford Gravitt removed citizen journalist Nydia Tisdale  from a recent public meeting. Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens is investigating whether Gravitt violated the state's sunshine laws. In an interview, Gravitt claimed that he was confused about the state’s Open Records Act. He thought it “only permitted people to take still pictures or video, and not both.” Check out the video of Tisdale being removed from the meeting  (around the 2:20 mark) by clicking on the image below. As she is being removed, she maintains, "This is an open and public meeting; I have a right by Georgia law to record this meeting." Ironically, this all took place on the same day that Governor Nathan Deal signed a rewrite of the state's Open Records Act into law. For more information, see Thomas Wheatly’s post on Fresh Loaf.
• After a six-year battle between open government advocates and those who opposed a new open government  bill, Iowa is getting a new state agency dedicated to enforcement of open government. The agency is meant to help solve disputes between governments and record seekers and will work as an enforcer to the state’s current open meetings laws. “The biggest benefit of having this is making sure that public records and meetings are open and available to Iowans,” said Chris Mudge, director of the Iowa Newspaper Association. For the whole story, check out Jason Clayworth’s post on the DesMoines Register.
• In 2011, more than 115 items, including  guns, drugs and money, came up  missing from the Asheville Police Department’s evidence room. Asheville City Council spent $175,000 in taxpayer money to fund an audit of the evidence room. According the the audit contract, a copy of the completed audit should have been made public to the city. The results of the audit were delivered to District Attorney Ron Moore in January. However, Moore  has ignored several open records requests and has not made the results of public. In doing so, Moore has failed to comply with state law requiring a response to open records requests “as promptly as possible.” Members of the local news media and the North Carolina Press Association are currently signing a petition to have the information made public. For the whole story, see David Forbes’ post on Mountain Xpress.
• Last week, we took a look at the aftermath of a contested mayoral election in New Mexico. The election is in the news again this week. The Doña Ana County district attorney’s office is investigating the possibility that the Sunland Park City Council violated the state's Open Meetings Act when it selected a new mayor following the election scandal. The meeting's venue was too packed to house the entire crowd. Many people – including at least two who wanted to ask for the appointment to the mayor’s job – were kept by police from entering. Though the state’s Open Meeting Act has rarely been enforced with criminal charges, it requires that anyone who tries to attend a public meeting of a government body be allowed in. For more information, see Heath Haussamen’s post on NMPoltics.
• On Tuesday, there was a public meeting in Dixon, Illinois to discuss allegation that the city comptroller embezzled $30 million dollars from the city. The meeting featured Dixon business owner and former candidate for state representative Li Arellano. Arellano focused the meeting on making city government more transparent.  A major point in the meeting was the city’s low transparency score from the Illinois Policy Institute and how the cities website failed to contain easily accessible financial information as required. According to the Illinois Policy Institute "A public posting of Dixon’s check register (expenditures) might have stopped the public corruption from happening in the first place." For Ulysses S. Arn’s take, see his post on USOFarn.

• The Salt Lake Tribune covered a  University of Utah honors class project: developing a set of five guiding principles to help local governments throughout the state increase transparency. The project’s goal is to persuade all 270-plus county and city governments in Utah to adopt their  principles to make their government more open. The projects focused on transparency in the age of the Internet. Moreover, the class itself operated in a transparent manner: “Every lecture was videotaped; every class presentation, too. Students had to comment daily on Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and blogs. Anyone who wanted could see what the Think Tank and its individual members were up to — and some students developed notable followings.” Theresa Krause, one of the participating students, maintained  "Information is the currency of democracy. It is the key to citizen engagement.  "The Internet has made data available and changed the way we think about transparency and access to government." For the whole story, check out Mike Gorell’s post on the Salt Lake Tribune.
• The week, the Maine House rejected a bill that would have exempted the governor’s working papers from the state’s Freedom of Access laws.  The bill would have also exempted some members of the governor's staff from Freedom of Access Act, at least until the end of the legislative session. They include the governor's chief of staff, legal counsel, director of policy and employees under their direct supervision. Representative Kim Monaghan-Derrig told her colleagues that she worried the bill would  hurt the state’s transparency. For more information, see Susan Sharon’s post on the Maine Public Broadcasting Network. 
• In order to avoid a violation of the Massachusetts Open Meetings Law, Scituate selectmen met for a special meeting to reaffirm a vote they took to approve contracts with non-union employees. In an executive session last November, the board voted to approve the contracts, including the contract for the Town Administrator, which is a violation of the open meeting law. They reaffirmed the vote in an open session this week. Selectmen Chair Tony Vegnani addressed the issue and said, “We met this evening to address a ruling from the Town of Carver, in regards to the Open Meeting Law. In November, we accepted three non-union contracts; the Town Accountant, Town Treasurer and Town Administrator and we did it in executive session. A month later in December, a ruling of the Open Meeting Law said that contracts needed to be accepted in open session. We read it in Beacon and talked to town counsel about it and they thought it would prudent, if we actually accepted the contracts in open meeting, as opposed to executive session.” For the whole story, see John Penny’s post on 959 WATD. 
• The McPherson School building is an old Illinois building  with an incredibly rich history. The building will be on the receiving end of a million dollar infrastructure improvement project. The funds will be dispersed by the Illinois Local School Council (LSC).  According to Patrick Boylan, “Our biggest complaint about McPherson is there is a corporate culture apparent that wants secrecy.” He maintains, “The price for those public dollars should be greater transparency at McPherson. Alone, of the LSCs examined by The Bulldog, McPherson has no records available to the public. It puts hurdles up to public access and it may be responsible, in part, for the decision by CPS to restrict public access to LSC election information. That culture of mistrust must change.” He calls on the Local School Council to make their process more transparent by disclosing meeting minutes and agendas online and making meetings more inclusive to the public. For his take, check out his post on the Wells Park Bulldog. 

Last week, due to Veterans Day we were unable to publish the weekly roundup. Here is what you missed in last week's roundup of transparency blogs around the nation. This week's roundup will be coming up shortly.

• According to The Sunshine Review, 254 Texas county websites earned F grades for transparency and accessibility. These districts receive sales or property tax dollars, yet claim that their salary data is not subject to the Texas Open Information Act. Curt Olsen find their lack of transparency unacceptable, arguing, “No public official should ignore that they’re being watched by groups like Sunshine Review to ensure taxpayers at their desktop or laptop computer can see specific information about the budget, meetings, public officials, and ethics.” He goes on to say, “Transparency and accountability is still about actions, not words, and it’s about time the people running these special districts understood taxpayers are their CEO.” For the rest of his take, check out his post on Texas Budget Source.

• Despite the state’s spotty history with transparency, The Sunshine Review has just increased the Kansas state website’s grade from a B- to a B thanks to redesigns made by Governor Sam Brownback’s administration. Kirstin McMurray, The Sunshine Review’s managing editor, maintains that the site could be further improved  by disclosing  any lobbying that state-funded organizations do to secure federal help for the state. State Representative Kasha Kelley seems to agree, pointing out, “We’ve been so busy dealing with the budget that no one’s pushed transparency issues. I  think budget issues and open government issues go hand in hand. The less you have to spend, the more you have to account for it.” To get the whole scoop, read Gene Meyer’s post on Statehouse News Online.

•  The Winchester Sun has asked Attorney General Jack Conway to review an executive session the Winchester-Clark County Parks and Recreation Board held before deciding to allow alcohol sales in a local park during a concert. The parks board responded, claiming that they had received legal threats from the public regarding the decision. According to the Kentucky Open Meetings Act, public bodies are required to conduct all of their business in an open session except when certain issues arise, including threatened or pending litigation. The Winchester Sun responded that the threat of legal action was “remote” and therefore the exemption did not apply. For the whole story, see Mike Farrell’s post on The Kentucky Open Government Blog.
•  In 2005, the Boston City Council faced a lawsuit that revealed 11 deliberately secret council meetings with Boston Redevelopment Authority and Boston University officials in 2003-05. The meetings violated the state Open Meeting Law and the court fined the council $11,000.  This week, Judge John Cratsley ruled that the Boston City Council no longer needed court monitored meetings to ensure they met the state’s Open Meeting Law. Crastley maintains, “There has been a positive change in the Council’s attitude toward and attention to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.” Transparency advocate Shirley Kressel, the plaintiff in the case, is not convinced. She claims, “The loss is not ours. The loss is to the citizens as a whole.” For John Ruch’s take, read his post on The Mission Hill Gazette Blog.  
• Mayor Bloomberg has just launched NYC BigApps 3.0, a contest that challenges software developers to design mobile applications using official city data. The competition started in 2009 and is geared towards government transparency and improvement of the lives of New Yorkers. The fits nicely alongside Bloomberg’s stated commitment to increasing technology in New York. For more information, see Kristina Farrah’s post on Silicone Angle .

• The Jordan-Elbridge County school district held a training session for the public on the county’s open meetings law. State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood has ruled that the Jordan-Elbridge board violated New York's open meetings law in the past.  The training session was led by Robert Freeman, the executive director of the Committee on Open Government. Freeman hopes the sessions will alleviate mistrust citizens have in the school district regarding lack of transparency, maintaining, "I don't know details about the hostility that has been expressed in this school district but my hope of course is that knowledge of the law and when everybody hears the same question and the same answer at the same time it will encourage a little more peace.” For Alex Dunbar’s take, check out his post on CNY Central.

• A group of concerned citizens wants Arizona to phase out bipartisan elections in favor of Open Elections that would have the highest-polling  candidates going to the general election regardless of political party. Supporters say the proposed Open Elections/Open Government Act would put an end to small groups of partisan voters effectively deciding elections by turning out for primaries. Paul Johnson, the former Phoenix mayor serving as chairman of the Open Government Committee argues, “It opens up the elections so more people can vote in the primary election, which effectively will end up opening up government to more ideas and more people who can participate."  To get the full story, check out Joanne Ingram’s post at the Tucson Sentinel. 
• The Englewood City Council is poised to end their policy of choosing the mayor and mayor pro tem on a secret vote. In the past, the council has held a secret ballot in an informal meeting before codifying their final selections in public. Critics argue that the practice violates the Colorado's Sunshine Law. District 4 Councilman Rick Gillit says he helped push for the change to help bring transparency to a city that some say has been slow to comply with Colorado’s open-meetings law. To read more, check out Peter Jones’ post on the Villager. 
• Tennessee State Senator Bo Watson is considering a bill calling for all public notices in Hamilton County to be published online rather than in newspapers. Notices provide the public information about city and county governing bodies' public meetings as well as zoning matters, public purchases and other areas. Supporters of the proposed bill argue that the current law requiring newspaper public of public notices amount to a "subsidy" for an industry losing subscribers because of technological change. For more information, read  Tom Humphrey’s blog Humphrey on the Hill.

• The Austin Independent School District agreed to release a report that deals with the closing, repurposing, and consolidation of nine schools in Central Texas. The district was supposed to release the report to The Austin American Stateman several days prior to a school board meeting scheduled for Monday. However,   district officials later said they would only release the document if the newspaper’s editors and reporters were willing to wait until 10 PM Monday night, several hours after the meeting would have taken place. The school district claims that the report was actually a “working draft,” which exempts it from the state’s open records law. Curt Olsen remains unconvinced, maintaining, “transparency with conditions is not transparency." Read more of his take at the Texas Budget Source.

• The Attorney General of Massachusetts has just released a new website to ensure all meetings are in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. Members of the public, press, municipal officials, and public bodies may access its determinations by searching for key terms or phrases or by actions ordered. According to Jefferey Roy, “The Open Meeting Law supports the principle that the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action. It requires that most meetings of governmental bodies to be held in public.” Find out more at the Franklin School Committee Blog.

• According to Max Brantley, Little Rock’s city hall is violating transparency laws. Two days after Brantly filed an FOI for accumulated city data on ward redistricting, none have been provided. The custodian of the documents has not replied, as law requires, to his FOI request. City manager Bruce Moore claims they have published the only document pertaining to redistricting, however,  Brantly disagrees. He asks readers, “Do you trust them to be any more forthcoming about decisions on spending their new half-billion dollars?” Read more at the Arkansas Blog.

• Former city council candidate and California attorney Mauren Sundstrom  filed a complaint with the San Bernardino County District Attorney alleging that Upland City Council committed two open meeting law violations. She alleges that these meetings violated the Brown Act, which allows the public the opportunity participate in meetings of local government agencies. Sundstrom maintains that she wants city council to realize they may not be as open as they think they are. Read Sandra Emerson’s  post on Inland Politics to find out more.

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.

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.

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.