Texas Salary Database Developed from FOIA requests

We at WikiFOIA are always glad to encourage fellow transparency advocates in their ventures into making government more transparent. Today I thought I would take the opportunity to point out a few websites that I was directed to by one of our readers. Houstoncitysalaries.com, Austinsalaries.com, and Dallas Fort Worth salaries.com are all websites compiled by a series of public records requests which track the salaries of city employees within those municipalities. While the site developer has focused on Texas cities so far, he is planning to expand to include cities like Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Denver. The sites are well set up, and contain a convenient search box that breaks the information down by City, Department, Position and even name. The information is free to access and easy to use. These sites provide both an excellent resource for anyone doing investigation into government salaries but also an excellent example of what a few records requests can achieve. Maybe some day all government offices might even set up their own site like this, but that is somewhat lofty thinking. In the meantime, check out the Texas salary databases and look for more news as states open up.

A call to reconsider Georgia’s move to exempt graphic images and recordings.

For those who aren’t following this issue, Georgia HB 1322 is a bill proposed this year which intends to block the release of graphic images of victims from release to the mainstream public.  It was proposed in response to Hustler Magazines request for the images of the decapitated body of Meredith Emerson, a hiker killed two years ago. We are tracking this legislation on our page, Georgia Open Records Act The bill passed in the house, preventing only the release of graphic photos. However, this past week, the senate amended the bill to include recordings of the suffering of someone or any recordings which would cause emotional distress.

Now this law is just one of many laws introduced this year centering on protecting the rights of crime victims. Numerous states have introduced laws to block the release of 911 calls this year including Ohio, to prevent playing them on the news, Florida, South Carolina and Wisconsin, all blocking release entirely. (To see a full list of proposed legislation we are tracking, see: Proposed reforms in state sunshine laws, 2010). Obviously the issue of protecting personal privacy is a major problem for FOIA laws across the country. The line between the public’s right to monitor their police and emergency response personnel’s practices and a victim’s right to privacy is a vague gray line that often gets caught up in serious court battles. However, after reading the FOIA law proposed in Georgia, I am left wondering if it can be taken too far.

The Georgia Senate’s move to exempt recordings on police cameras of individuals suffering, without appropriate protections, can easily turn into a method for emergency response teams to shield problems from the public eye. Under this exemption, police departments can reasonably choose to shield videos of police violence due to the nature of the content. Especially if the decision to exempt the images comes from within the police department itself. The police cameras were installed in police cruisers partially with the intention of protecting the public from potential police harassment. Creating this exemption can easily prevent the public and the media from monitoring the activities of their police and emergency response teams and thus open the door to potential problems.

Due to the nature of this sensitive subject, we would like the House to seriously consider modifying the legislation so as to incorporate checks against the gross abuse of such an exemption. Checks, similar to those in the original law, should be included so as to permit media organizations to view the files and report on them while still preventing their release on mainstream sources. The law should also permit victims access to the documents in question and the ability to release those documents, if they so desire to the public. Finally, the House should consider establishing a third party system, through the attorney general or a similar elected official that will remove the decision of what files to exempt from the police departments to a potentially more neutral party. This proposed legislation can be a valuable exemption, but only if, like all things in government, it is checked against abuse by other powers.

.

FOIAchat Friday

Sunshine Review and WIkiFOIA are launching a new FOIA friday chat on twitter to encourage conversation about FOIA records.  The chats started about a month ago and we have already had a strong turnout.  We have discussed topics ranging from worst FOIA experiences, to time limits, changes in law, and even the use of state records commissions to reduce the case load at court.  This week we are announcing a page to follow the results of FOIA friday discussions including a calendar of future topics.  The review of past topics and the calendar for future topics, see FOIAchat We have outlined the topics through June, but more topics are to follow.  Feel free to comment on any recommendations for topics or send me an email.  The topic for this week will be “Can I FOIA that?” discussing general exemptions and FOIAable material and answering questions from anyone who tweets in.  We hope to see you all on.  The Hashtag for the chat will be #FOIAchat so please come join us.

Palin’s Speech Brings to Light Problems with FOIA and Private Agencies

The recent debate centering around CSU Stanislaus’ decision to bring former Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to campus to speak has not only generated interest in California’s law concerning non-profits, but also how every other state approaches the dilemma. The situation brings to light, not only the problem of public corporations hiding records within private non-profits but also the disparities and inconsistencies within the case law surrounding the subject.

To briefly review the facts, Palin was asked by the Stanislaus Foundation to speak at a University fundraiser. The Stanislaus Foundation, a private corporation whose sole goal is to raise and invest funds for the university, is managing the event. Currently under California law, University Foundations are exempt from public records request, despite their heavy involvement in public activities. To read more about the facts, see our article, Palin’s speech calls into question California’s law on non-profits To read more about California’s Law, see Private agency, public dollars-California

While the Governor of California and the University Foundations have argued that the release of investment records would have a “chilling effect” on the Foundations abilities to raise money, the claim is simply unfounded. The reality is that the California ruling is out of date and inconsistent with FOIA trends across the country for dealing with private agencies who function in the place of public bodies. First and foremost, the California law and case history already include in the definition of public body organizations who 1.)receive public funds and are controlled by public bodies and 2.) were created by public bodies to serve a public function. These particular definitions are fairly in line with the rest of the country. However, how an organization like the Stanislaus Foundation could finds its way around these definitions is beyond my understanding.

While the current exemption is found in California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001), this ruling is based on an ill founded justification. The court acknowledged only two instances of a foundation being considered a public body, Ohio and Louisiana, and ignored rulings in Arkansas, and South Carolina. Since then a major ruling in Michigan has concurred with this policy of openness as well as a decision in Nevada to include University Foundations directly in the definition of public body, see: Private Agencies-Public Dollars, Nevada. While the court in Fresno Association claimed that these cases were based on different laws, they did not provide a clear justification for exempting the Association under the California law.

In addition, the Stanislaus Foundation as it currently functions would fall within the definitions of public body from numerous states. Senator Yee, the main proponent of legislation intended to alter the law to include public bodies, alleges that the foundation uses University facilities, is staffed by University employees, and the head of its board is the president of the University. While the university foundation is self funded, it does invest large amounts of money into the university. Currently 13 states (including Arkansas, Nevada and South Carolina which have already been mentioned) only require that a private agency perform a public function to be considered a public body, while 2 additional states feel that a private agency which is controlled by a public body is subject to the records act. In addition, 3 other states consider private corporations who both perform a public function and are controlled by public bodies as public bodies under their records law. That makes at least 18 states that should consider University Foundations like the Stanislaus Foundation subject to the public records law. This doesn’t even account for factors like the creation of the foundation, or if it in fact receives public funds through either free rent or free public employees(for an excellent discussion on this see Weston v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation).

While, it appears that University Foundations have slid through the the cracks of the law up until now, because they were apparently not created by public bodies and are not considered to be publicly funded(both questionable claims), the legislature and the courts need to act in order to bring them under the law. Clearly, the passage of a bill last year (vetoed by the Governor) to bring them into line indicates the strong intention of the legislature to include these foundations. Further, legislatures and courts across the country have developed legal practices so as to specifically include these organizations within their definition of public body. If the current bill fails again, the courts need to reconsider their decision and take into account the legislatures actions with past bills and this national legal history. They need to recognize that these private university foundations function in public capacities and have become strongholds for hiding public records from tax paying citizens and the media. A move towards openness would not only improve the public records law, but also enable more efficient and transparent universities, which can be carefully regulated by the tax paying citizens that support them.

To read more about our research on laws affecting private agencies, please see Private agency, public dollars

FOIA gets political in a Chicago Suburb

It seems that FOIA is not just being used to thwart and disenfranchise the media and the average citizen anymore. An investigation conducted by the Illinois Daily Herald turned up some interesting FOIA practices within the suburb of Island Lake. In a stunning move that demonstrates the power of information, Island Lake trustees report that while opponents of the mayor are forced to file records requests and pay for documents required for the performance of their duties, the mayor’s allies did not face the same difficulties.

Village trustees from opposing parties have been forced to submit formal FOIA requests and pay for documents, including documents as crucial to their positions as budgets, bills, legal invoices and copies of building permits. At the same time, trustees who side with the mayor are not facing the same difficulties. “It’s a problem,” Island Lake Trustee Laurie Rabattini told the Herald, commenting on the $7.95 she had to pay for an official city budget obtained through a FOIA request. “There should be cooperation and a partnership, not an internal political roadblock.”

When the disenfranchised trustees proposed altering the cities FOIA policy to exempt trustees, they were voted down, 4-3 with the mayor casting the deciding vote. The majority (composed entirely of allies of the mayor who have not been subject to the FOIA rules), acting on the advice of legal counsel, determined that the trustees were already exempt. Interesting that the city hadn’t considered them exempt up to that point. Situations like this serve as the best reminder of how much power lies in the control of the free flow of information and how that power can be abused, even at the lowest level of government.

Sunshine League

In an effort to increase wiki users and gather more information on WikiFOIA, we will be launching a new initiative, the Sunshine League. The Sunshine League is WikiFOIA’s attempt to develop and advance the collective powers of FOIA organizations from across the country through the use of new social media. This League is open to FOIA activists and organizations from all 50 states. While we at the Lucy Burns Institute have worked hard to create a solid foundation of case-law and news at WikiFOIA, the nature of a wiki provides a perfect opportunity for FOIA organizations to contribute their expertise on their states, collaborate across states with ideas for changes in records laws and request strategies and share news stories from their states about recent FOIA developments. This project is dedicated to expanding our circle of contributors and editors by appealing to the people and organizations who share our mission and who in turn would benefit from the collective knowledge of WikiFOIA.

Joining the Sunshine League is as easy as making a small contribution to WikiFOIA. The only real requirement is to develop a page on your organization that highlights your mission and any service or assistance you may off to citizens of your state. This will be added to a list of organizations from all 50 states who users and readers can contact for open records advice in their state. While many stub pages have already been created and need expanded, creating your own is just as easy. Instructions for joining up are at our project page. However, after posting your own page, you may want to consider staying on and helping WikiFOIA by contributing your expertise on state law or building pages on major news stories you are following. Hopefully, through collective efforts we can improve transparency not only in our individual states but across the country.

Introducing a new Blogger

My name is Joshua and I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself.  I will be taking over this Open Records blog from Leslie and doing the majority of the blogging.  I am currently the managing editor of www.wikifoia.org.  I am an open records enthusiast and really enjoy getting into the gritty details of open records laws from across the country.  I look forward to sharing news with everyone and hearing their comments.  You can find my profile at WikiFOIA user Joshua Meyer . You can also now follow WikiFOIA on twitter at the username, WikiFOIA.