Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to uphold states’ rights to limit public information request to in-state requests, will likely hamper access by journalists and citizens to government information in certain states. To mitigate potential difficulties to access information in Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee and Virginia, MuckRock is seeking volunteers to serve as citizen co-filers from these states. MuckRock (a former Sunlight grantee) is a free service that serves as a FOIA proxy to request public records and creates a community database of FOIA-ed documents. In particular, our friends at MuckRock tell us they need the most help in Delaware.

Don’t let government transparency be limited by state lines, sign up to help!

To see an example of where the ability to file a local request in another state was critical to uncovering a special local interest, take a look at this story MuckRock unearthed in the FOIA process on drone documents.

James Fee brings news of a dismaying decision by an Ohio court. A real estate appraiser named Robert Gambill tried to use the state's public records law to obtain some data -- information about deeds and some aerial photography.  Everyone seems to agree that this information is public, and that Gambill has a right to it. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. From Fee's blog post (quoting courtnewsohio.gov):

In a 6-1 per curiam opinion, the court held that Opperman met the requirements of the Ohio Public Records Act by offering to provide Gambill with a copy of the county’s electronic database containing deed information and aerial photos of all property in the county if Gambill paid the estimated $2,000 cost of separating that data from proprietary mapmaking software protected by U.S. patent laws that is “inextricably intertwined” with the data on the engineer’s computer.

Gambill is welcome to come down to the government's offices to print out paper copies, or he can pay a couple thousand dollars to get a far more useful electronic copy that's been untangled from the proprietary software that houses it. Those aren't great choices.

The proprietary software in question is made by Esri. Their software is indisputably powerful and useful--you don't have to look far to find a GIS expert who'll attest to its worth. But situations like this one should make it obvious that government's use of closed, proprietary solutions come with real and often unexpected costs--both to people like Robert Gambill who have a right to the data, and for the rest of us, who could benefit indirectly from the ways that government's data is used.

This is why the use of open formats is one of the Open Data Principles that we spend so much time talking about. Government should buy the software it needs, but openness has to be a consideration when making those purchasing decisions. As Fee says, that one dissenting judge gives us reason for hope. But we clearly have a long way to go.

Thanks to Tom MacWright for the heads-up. Photo by Andrew Magill.

What if the information that you usually have to “FOIA” or ask your government for under your state’s public records law was made “easily accessible on a single, centralized, searchable resource hub”? That’s the question Utah State Senator Diedre Henderson asked yesterday in a blog post introducing the work going into Utah’s first open data legislation.

Sunlight has been working along with Senator Henderson and a coalition of open government advocates, local technology experts, and others over the last month to help define the principles and important questions that this legislation will address. I’ve included the outlined principles below, but you can find the full narrative about them in Senator Henderson’s post here.

Looking over the approach the coalition decided to take, we are thrilled to see that Sunlight’s Open Data Policy Guidelines have played such a strong role in helping the coalition define the goals for their legislation and think broadly about the role of open data in state operations.

This bill comes at an interesting crossroads in Utah’s history: At the same time that the government has turned concentrated attention toward their web presence and data publishing, it has also acted antagonistically towards its public records law (known locally as "GRAMA"). In 2011, the state legislature came very close to rolling back the amount of information that lawmakers had to make public about their official communications and correspondence, prompting public outcry. Although the proposed changes were ultimately defeated, it was an eye-opening experience for members of government and the public alike. As part of the reconciliation process, a working group of legislators, staff, open software experts, and representatives of the media and public conducted a series of studies to better understand the needs and challenges faced by all parties in seeking (and sharing) public information, with a particular eye toward electronic disclosure.

It’s a great sign that former members of this working group are joining together as part of the open data bill drafting process -- and that this process is being made open to the public. Utahns who are interested in getting involved should be sure to take up the invitation to share your thoughts and contribute. (More info here.)

Here are the foundational principles informing the open data bill that Senator Henderson listed in her blogpost:

1. Establish open formats

• Define and standardize open formats for government data
• Require any public information to be posted on the Internet
• Remove restrictions on reuse of information
• Appropriately safeguard sensitive information (as defined by GRAMA)
• Require exemptions to open data policy to be balance-tested against the public interest (as currently defined by GRAMA)

2. Ensure open access

• Create permanent, lasting access to government data
• Publish bulk data
• Create public APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) for accessing information
• Remove restrictions for accessing government information

3. Implement thoughtful systems

• Create processes to ensure data quality
• Create a public, comprehensive list of all information holdings
• Define process for continuous publication and updates to data
• Create new oversight authority to review implementation of the requirements

4. Require the publishing of metadata or other documentation

• Utilize best practice considerations in crafting the plan for implementation of the bill itself and all its provisions
• Set appropriately ambitious timelines for implementation
• Ensure sufficient funding for implementation
• Empower the creation of binding rules to implement the new policy
• Incorporate public perspectives into policy implementation
• Define process for future review for potential changes to this policy or law

5. Mandate the disclosure of specific new information (as defined by GRAMA)

• Identify public data not currently made available online
• Define and implement process for making additional public data available
• Define timeline and benchmarks for accountability
• Define best practices for implementation of e-filing processes

6. Encourage accountability

• Recognize existing best practices of accountability, efficiency and openness
• Review best practices and encourage broader implementation
• Invite civic engagement
• Build on existing public accountability policies to best utilize existing information hubs
• Define and implement structural data standards and format review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit: Jonathan Welch and Max Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Cause Hawaii Testimony on SB2858

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.

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.