• After footage of a tense city council meeting  in West Branch, Iowa  was posted on YouTube, City Administrator Matt Mucker suggested a rule that would have required the public to secure mayoral permission to record meetings. This measure would would have violated the state’s open meetings law. After this breach of the law was pointed out to Mucker, he argued that would “ rewrite the rule to exempt the media.” Gregory Norfleet, editor of the West Branch Times, noted the law was not written for the media’s benefit.  “It’s for everybody,” he said. Furthermore, Mark Tomb, director of membership for the Iowa League of Cities, warns, “It is important to remember that nearly anyone can bring an action against the city for violating the Iowa Open Meetings Law. Each member who participated in the violation may be assessed damages of not more than $500 or not less than $100. These penalties increase to no more than $2,500 or no less than $1,000 when the member knowingly participated in the violation. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.” For the whole story, check out Matthew E. Marquardt’s post on North Iowa Today.
• After a disgruntled employee took to Facebook to air his grievances, Jackson, Mississippi  was forced to come up with a policy regarding social media and public entities. The city itself is now developing a policy. In the meantime, the fire department has released their own policy: “The Department’s memo encourages employees not to: publicly discuss issues that might be detrimental to the Department or that might conflict with the duties and ethics of a firefighter; to air personal grievances; and clarify that their opinions are their own and not those of the Department.”  According to Jennifer Peet of Local Open Government Blog,“ For public entities, the tool is useful for broadcasting to a growing Internet audience, but allowing feedback and conversation can be a risk. Like the Jackson Fire Department, every government entity will need to have a conversation about the inherent conflict between an individuals free speech rights and the government’s legitimate right to protect the government service.”

• While summarizing the changes Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst hopes to implement with the Senate Select Committee on Open Government, Curt Olsen reminds, “Initiatives for 'open government' either improve access or hinder it." Olsen maintains that each change should be watched carefully, as, “ State lawmakers can pass laws that enhance openness and transparency or they can pass laws that cause mischief and erect a new hurdle for taxpayers to have access to government." The proposed changes include: “The use of new technologies and future technological advances as relates to the creation of public information” and “Study ways to define and address frivolous and/or overly-burdensome open records requests. “State lawmakers can pass laws that enhance openness and transparency or they can pass laws that cause mischief and erect a new hurdle for taxpayers to have access to government.” For the entire list and Olsen’s opinion, check out his post on Texas Budget Source.
• In her assessment of the state of Minnesota transparency, Mary Tracey maintains, “What matters to most citizens is the right to access to information by and about state, regional and local government information – state agencies, county boards, advisory committees and regulators, every entity from the Governor’s office to the local school board. In her post on Poking Around With Mary, she summarizes the open government portals available to Minnesotans: The twin pillars of access in Minnesota are the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law.  Essential guides to each include these:  Open Meeting Law,Government Data Practices Act.  The Legislative Reference Libraryalso offers a comprehensive list of guides and information about parallel laws and regulations in other states." She urges citizens who are concerned with government transparency to “be aware of the agencies’ responsibilities to assure compliance with the spirit and the letter of the law.”

In our continued effort to highlight the anniversary of January 2010's Citizens United decision, this month's weekly roundups will take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. First, we took a look at bloggers from the primary states. Last week, we looked at bloggers from the East coast states. We'll be ending our coverage by rounding up local blogs from the West coast states, where many campaign donations derive.

• San Francisco's Political Blotter covered Common Causes’ Amend 2012 campaign to reverse the Citizens United ruling. According to  Josh Richman of Political Blotter, “A constitutional amendment will take years to pass, coming far too late to stem the tide of money that’s already flooding this year’s election, but organizers say this effort at least will give outraged voters a voice and inject the issue into November’s vote, forcing candidates to take a position on it.” The campaign's initial drive for petition signatures will focus on Colorado, Montana and Massachusetts; that might expand to Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio and Washington. Common Cause President Bob Edgar said Americans “have lost faith in Washington, they don’t think the government works for them anymore.”
• Despite 2010’s Citizens United ruling, Montana state courts upheld the state's law banning corporate spending. According to the court, laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Opponents of Citizens United in Montana worry that a large influx of corporate money has the potential to alter the course of elections and politics in the state. A former house representative maintained that, “Montana, with its small population, enjoys political campaigns marked by person-to-person contact and a low cost of advertising as compared to other states.” For the whole story, check out Patrick Genova’s post on State of Elections.

In our continued effort 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. Last week, we took a look at bloggers from the primary states. This week, we'll be rounding up blogs from the East coast states, where many campaign donations derive.

• Vermont State Senator Bernie Sanders has just proposed the "Saving American Democracy Amendment" aimed at overturning the Citizens United decision. In a statement, Sanders maintained, “There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment.” He called the court's ruling "a complete undermining of democracy.” Sanders launched an online petition to garner support for the Amendment. Sanders is bringing the proposal before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by  Senator Patrick Leahy. A Leahy spokesman said that while Leahy supports attempts to undo the damage of the Citizens United, he remains skeptical that the Senate will be able to gather the two-thirds super majority necessary to pass Sanders' proposal. The issue appears to have gained local traction in Vermont; Ben & Jerry’s ice cream moguls Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield sponsored a well attended public forum to lend to gather public support for Sanders’ amendment. For more on this story, check out  Shay Totten's post on Seven Days. 

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.

• Americans for Prosperity-Nebraska, a free-market advocacy group, has filed a complaint with the state attorney general against the Lincoln-Lancaster County Public Building Commission, alleging the body violated the state’s open meetings laws. The complaint alleges that commission did not provide adeuate notice of an emergency meeting to draw up plans to buy a bulding near city hall. The only notice the commission provided was one hasty flier on bulletin board inside the City-County Building and a notice on a website the morning of the meeting. Don Killeen, building administrator for the Public Building Commision, maintained that the city's attorney claimed the flier met the state law’s requirements for public notice of an emergency meeting. Normally, the Public Building Commission’s regular meetings are advertised in the newspaper. However, the director of the Nebraska chapter of Americans for Prosperity, Brad Stevens, said in a press release, “Hanging a flier inside the City/County building announcing this irregular meeting of the PBC is an insult to taxpayers.” For more information, read Deena Winter’s post on The Franklin Center for Government  & Public Integrity. 

• Hudson County’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics has already taken some heat for holding part of its executive  meeting behind closed doors. Associated Press reporter Michael Gormley asked for an explanation as to why the board was headed into private session, citing New York state’s Open Meetings Law. The outgoing executive director, Barry Ginsberg, explained that JCOPE—like former state ethics panels—is exempt from the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information law. Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore, the chairwoman of JCOPE, maintains that while the board will try to hold public, but sensitive matters—such as personnel decisions and investigations—would need to be done in private. For the whole story, check out James M. Odato’s post on Times Union.
• New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow has created new rules to keep records of any State Police overtime pay confidential, blocking their access to the public. A Superior Court ruling from 2005 said that the records could be used to determine patrolmen’s assignments, like Homeland Security, undercover cases and the Executive Protection Unit. State Police overtime records had actually been shown on a state website from Governor Chris Christie’s administration designed to promote government transparency and to use for open public records requests for state employees salary numbers. The website, called Christie’s "Transparency Center," will no longer post policemen’s salaries. Supporters of open government said taxpayers have the right to track public spending. Ron Miskoff of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government said, according to the Republic, "The public is paying the freight, and I don't see how knowing someone's overtime will put anyone in danger." For Bob Holt’s take, read his post on New Jersey Newsroom. 
• The Sunshine Review has given Kansas a transparency score of “B.” The Kansas state website earned a “B” grade, accounting for half of Kansas’ overall grade. Sunshine Review also analyzed the websites of the five largest counties, which averaged a “B.” The five largest cities earned a “B+” and the ten largest school districts averaged a “C+.”Kansas’ scores across the board are just average compared to other states around the country. Anything less than an ‘A+’ is a disservice to Kansas taxpayers,” said Michael Barnhart, President of Sunshine Review. “Transparency should be a priority to every elected official and voter. Citizens in Kansas and around our nation deserve to have the information they need to hold their government accountable.” For the whole story, read Fred Gough’s post on Hutch Post.

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.

• A New York state judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom against the New York State Senate, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and the New York State Department of Health may proceed. The lawsuit challenges New York’s same sex marriage law. The plaintiffs argue the law was passed as a result of a combination of factors, from Senate meetings that violated New York State Open Meeting Laws to promises of campaign contributions for Republican senators who changed their vote. The suit also cites atypical procedures in the Senate, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s waiving the constitutionally required three-day review period before a legislative vote, lobbyists and the general public being denied access to representatives, and private dinners at the Governor’s mansion. For the full story, read Lauren Rodgers’ post on Ballot News.

• The Maryland Register, a official state news publication that provides updates on state regulations, legal opinions and hearings, has reversed a decision to charge consumers for its real-time, online news. Had the decision gone through, consumers would have had to pay a $190 annual feel to get news on the same day of its publication.  According to Register Editor Gail Klakring,“The Register is once again available online on the day it’s published for non-paying consumers. We realized that any change to the availability of Maryland Register has had an unintended impact on the transparency of Government and that was never the intent.” The fee was added in October prompting a complaint by the Maryland Chamber of Commerce to the state’s Joint Committee on Transparency and Open Government. Committee member Delegate Heather Mizeur sees this issue as a threat to government transparency. The Maryland Reporter’s Glynis Kazanjian maintains that Mizeur “went on to criticize the Secretary of State’s Office for what appeared to be a reversal in progress in government transparency.”

• According to Galloway Township News, New Jersey’s Galloway Township has failed to release an agenda for the townships meeting their meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2011. GallowayTwpNews.com emailed township manager Steven Bonanni on Sunday to remind him the agenda had not been released. Bonanni said he was on vacation and that he would follow up with the agenda on Monday morning. The agenda has still not been released. Galloway Township News maintains that Galloway Township has broken the state’s open meeting law that requires the public bodies provide the public with adequate advance notice of all its meetings. For the whole story, check out Harry B. Scheeler’s post at Galloway Township News.
• During a campaign speech in 2010, Nevada’s Nye County Treasurer Mike Maher promised citizens he would provide “accurate, timely, financial information so you can be capable of being informed and capable of either supporting a solution to a financial action by your elected officials prior to expenditures being made instead of after an expenditure is being made.” Maher is eight months behind in filing the monthly treasurer's reports,the verge of having a complaint filed against him in District Court. Nye County Commissioner Joni Eastley  maintained that if monthly treasurer reports through Oct. 31 were not produced by the Dec. 6 county commission meeting, she will put an item on the agenda Dec. 20 to file a complaint against Maher. To read more, check out Mark Waite’s post on the Pahrump Valley Times.
• An effort to create an online forum that would allow Oregon City’s 10 urban renewal commissioners to publicly discuss agency business came to a quick halt after city officials raised concerns about hosting what amounts to a meeting that never ends. The recommendation from Commissioner Phil Yateswas intended to allow the urban renewal board to share opinions during the lull between its twice-a-month meetings. Commissioners often run short on time at meetings and that’s led at least one member to question the agency’s effectiveness. The process would be transparent and the public could listen in on the conversation any time, Yates said. For more information, check out Steve Mayes’ post at Oregon Live.
• A Washington State Court of Appeals recently held that prison inmate Robert Johnson’s public records lawsuit against the State of Washington Department of Corrections was time-barred, and therefore dismissed. In August 2006, Johnson sent a public records request to the Department of Correction’s Public Disclosure Unit requesting information about the Extended Family Visitation policy revision. The DOC told Johnson that the only responsive record was one email documenting approval of the policy change, which Johnson received in early September, 2006. Over the next few months, Johnson submitted a duplicate public records request to various Department of Corrections Public Disclosure officers seeking the same information identified in his original request. After a series of additional requests, the Department sent Johnson a final letter on August 27, 2007, noting that Johnson had already received the sole responsive document, and that his request was considered closed. Over two years later, another requestor, Melinda Carter, sought the same information as Johnson. Carter was provided with nearly substantially more information than Johnson, over 300 pages of documents in response to her request. In December 2009, Johnson filed a Public Records Act (“PRA”) action to compel production of records that the Department of Corrections ostensibly withheld. Johnson contended that the Department of Corrections violated the PRA by only disclosing a single email when he had requested all records pertaining to the Extended Family Visitation policy change. He cited Carter’s request and DOC’s 300-page response as evidence to support his claim. The superior court denied Johnson’s motion and dismissed his PRA action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Johnson’s arguments were time-barred. See Alicia Feichtmeir’s post on the Local Open Government Blog, for more information.

• Following the Penn State child sexual abuse scandal, lawmakers want to strip state-related institutions’ exemption from Pennsylvania’s right-to-know law. State Representative Eugene DePasquale announced that he would introduce legislation making state-related institutions subject to the Act 3 of the law which requires all records of state and municipal governmental agencies to be open to public access, including financial documents, contracts and emails from university officials. State lawmakers and open government advocates said the legislation would increase transparency for institutions that receive taxpayer funds. However, in 2007, Penn State officials opposed the right-to-know law because of fear that it would result in less revenue from donors and private companies. Terry Mutchler, executive director of the Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records matains that the law should be enforced, arguing, “anytime you have an entity that receives state dollars, there should be transparency.”‘ For Caleb Taylor’s take, read his post on Statehouse News Online.

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.