Michigan calls for transparency on its film incentive program

The Michigan House Tax Committee is sending SB 796 and 889 to the house for consideration. The bills would bid for more transparency about the Film Incentive Program, asking that information about jobs, film company expenditures and state rebates to companies to the Legislature, public and media be made public.

The Mackinac Center testified on the bills, which were proposed after the organization released a story about the Hangar42 deal. The Hangar42 studio, which was previously valued at $9.8 million, was recently bought by taxpayers for $40 million. The state has refused to answer questions about the large increase in price and the deal remains under scrutiny as the bills are considered.

D.C. Attorney General: D.C is transparent enough

A few days ago, DC Attorney General Peter Nickles asked the D.C. Council to pass legislation that would give the administration of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty “unspecified additional time” to respond to Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests in unusual circumstances. D.C. currently allows 15 days for a response to a FOIA, with a 10 day extension. (In comparison, Illinois FOIA law allows for 5 days to respond, and an additional 5 day extension.)

“I have never seen more burdensome FOIA requests that are sapping the energy of our lawyers and paralegals,” Nickles said. “You can’t both cut our budget and expect that we’re not going to have difficulties responding.”

Of course, executing open records and open meetings acts are worth extra money. It is part of governments’ responsibilities to deliver information we have a right to. But it is also important to balance this need with reality. What are the reasons to extend the amount of days to answer a request? As Nickles noted, sometimes governments don’t have the resources to answer all information requests in a timely matter.

My experience with the Illinois Freedom of Information Act shows the dual nature of the matter. Illinois had been suffering from poorly fulfilled FOIAs when the Attorney General Lisa Madigan decided to back an upgrade to the law. The new Illinois FOIA law, as compared to the old FOIA, gave governments more compelling reasons to answer a FOIA by upping the penalities for failing to comply with the law. It also shortened the amount of time to respond from seven days to five. After I sent FOIAs to all 102 of Illinois counties, somewhere around 80% (or higher) of the counties asked for the additional 5 day extension. This could point to the fact that for certain requests, the time limit is too strict. Still, what is the alternative? The alternative is local governments not taking a FOIA seriously and abusing more generous time limits.

But Nickles says the Fenty administration isn’t in this boat: the administration is doing great on transparency. One member of the DC Council, Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), disagrees and is currently advancing a transparency bill that would create an independent agency to oversee and facilitate the diclosure of records. Nickles has said the bill is unnecessary because the Fenty administration is creating an electronic system that will make it easier to submit and track FOIA requests. Nickles pointed to statistics that show the average response time to requests has been reduced since 2007. In general, the AG thinks D.C. is transparent enough already.

However, as one participant in our weekly Twitter conference notes, there is no such thing as too much transparency. We are due every last bit of nonsensitive information, online, and once that utopia is reached, we want information in real-time.

Cheh, in return, has said Nickles “is looking for an open-ended excuse not to comply, and he’s not going to get it. It’s a simple invitation to delay, an invitation to mischief.”

Fenty’s administration has sought to “delay at every turn” says the Chairman of the Fraternal Order of Police. The union’s attorney noted that the District “doesn’t respond at all or responds a year or two later, only after we file a lawsuit.”

Nickles also took issue with a provision of Cheh’s bill that would allow the new agency to impose fines. He said it would create an “unnecessarily punitive and adversarial approach that casts government agencies and their employees as villains to be punished and pursued.”

“Unnecessary” is in the eye of the beholder, which is the taxpayer in this case. Governments can’t afford to get lazy when it comes to providing information to its citizens, and they must lean towards quick disclosure. Illinois law treats asking for unreasonable fees for a FOIA response as noncompliance. In the same vein, if D.C. is really taking up to a year to respond to a FOIA, and ignoring others, then that is noncompliance, breaking the FOIA law, which makes the negligent agency a criminal. Nickles should be fighting for stricter penalties, not serving as an apologist to lazy governments.

Municipalities face budget woes

From California to Pennsylvania, local municipalities are facing crippling financial woes. This week Maywood, CA will be the first city to terminate all public employee jobs, including the police department. On the brink of bankruptcy, the city is trying to regain ground by outsourcing all of its work.

Maywood has also not be very forthcoming with its financial data, having not posted any information since 2008. Overall, the city scored a “D” on Sunshine Review’s transparency checklist.

Then there is Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The capital of Pennsylvania is just over $68 million in the hole, more than its annual budget. Harrisburg is not only asking creditors to forgive or restructure old debt, but is also considering cutting 537 public sector jobs.

However, unlike Maywood, Harrisburg has been very forthcoming with its financial data, and earned a “C” transparency grade from Sunshine Review.

Looking at these two situations, one can see transparency is not enough. While many elements have contributed to the cities financial troubles, it could have been averted by vocal taxpayers. Yet, taxpayers had access to the data in Harrisburg, and many remained silent on the matter.

This is a clear example that while transparency is a tool citizens can use to hold their government accountable, but without active citizen watchdogs we’ll continue to see crisises like these. There remains a great need for local involvement by constituents. We can not be so focused on the federal level that we forget to look after our homes.

How can New Mexico be more transparent?

The New Mexico Independent ran an article in April that compiled several takes on New Mexico’s transparency. It asked: “How can New Mexico be more transparent?” and asked for several takes on an answer. Basically, there’s room for improvement.

One obvious answer, however, to how the state can be more transparent is an overhaul of its open records and open meetings acts.

Bill Turner, a hydrologist and former director of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, noted that disclosing data isn’t the full scope of transparency. He details what are essentially problems with the execution of the state’s open records and open meetings act, the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. He details several problems he and others have had in trying to receive information from New Mexico offices and how these offices, either because of ignorance or purposeful information blocking, have refused to disclose information. “Our state legislators don’t even want webcasts of legislative sessions and committee sessions.”

The execution of the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act leaves room for improvement, but so does the law itself. For example, the cap on what a government can charge for a page of a record is $1. Perhaps for people who haven’t FOIA’d records, that sounds reasonable. But consider the fact that in order to have complete records for multiple years, FOIA responses can be hundreds, and thousands, of pages. And there’s the fact that the actual cost of making a copy is closer to 10¢.

A stronger law, with “teeth,” could help remedy the issues Turner has experienced. Illinois was facing similar problems with compliance with its Freedom of Information Act and the situation forced the legislature and Attorney General to come up with a stronger law governments would be compelled to follow. The new law was drafted to include what is in practice a cap on the amount governments can charge for information: if it isn’t “reasonable,” then that counts as noncompliance. Fees for noncompliant governments are up to $5000 . Being someone with experience in sending requests to local governments in Illinois, I can confidently say that these stipulations in the open records law really do work to motivate governments to provide as much information as possible in the most timely manner. The law in effect makes it so that when deciding whether to disclose information, the government must lean towards disclosure.

As Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation notes in that same article, the current law allows for many, many loopholes for local governments and agencies to forgo disclosing information.

This is being abused. For instance, state agencies cite federal FOIA law exemptions to create exemptions to the New Mexico obligation to produce records. They are two distinct governments. The exemptions and coverage of FOIA are separate from IPRA. The same reasoning would allow a state agency to cite tribal law, or the municipal law of Tupelo, Mississippi, or the internal code of Zimbabwe as they search for some law, somewhere–anywhere–that might give them an out.

And, he notes, it does not cost $1 to make a copy.

For more on New Mexico’s transparency, take a look at some of the wealth of information we have on Sunshine Review:

*New Mexico state government salary
*Evaluation of New Mexico counties website transparency
*Evaluation of New Mexico school district website transparency
*Evaluation of New Mexico state website transparency
*New Mexico government corruption
*New Mexico transparency legislation

Maryland to begin broadcasting meetings

This week Maryland passed legislation to broadcast certain meetings over the internet and is going to waive fees for “up-to-the-minute” updates on legislation.

Some of the meetings that will be broadcast are the Maryland Board of Public Works meetings, which has some influence in how the state budget will be divided. Also constituents will be able to watch like online video of the Maryland House and listen to live audio of the Senate by 2011.

The legislation was sponsored by Montgomery County Delegate Heather Mizeur and Montgomery County Sen. Nancy King who call this a victory for transparency.

Hat tip: Video Minutes

Transparency innovation means citizen involvement

We’ve written before about how governments are sponsoring contests involving citizens and small technology companies to better deliver government data.

The outcome of these contests has been positive. The contests have resulted the data released on data.gov becoming useful, data previously criticized as being low quality, into maps that display geographic clusters of asthma, for example. In Washington, D.C., the value of the software created by the first Apps for Democracy competition is estimated to be in excess of $2.2 million. That contest gave out $20,000 in cash prizes.

David McClure of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies for the Obama Adminsitration stated that the government must learn to accept the notion that innovation in governing will increasingly occur beyond the government sphere. In other words, he is urging governments to get used to the fact that they benefit from, and need to, collaborate with citizens in order to maximize the good we get from innovation. And, as noted, that is a good message. The benefits of giving citizens a key to open data are many.

However, that statement doesn’t go far enough. Citizens are important in helping government deliver information in usable, innovative ways, but they are also the most important part of the equation. Government isn’t doing us a favor by collaborating with us; it’s the government’s job to have an ongoing discussion with its citizens.

Innovation in transparency is a great means of ensuring this discussion happens. Ealier this week, the New York City Council held an open meeting, inviting experts and citizens to testify on how the city can make good use of data released by every city agency under a new bill.

Now, private companies are providing a means for beating government to the punch. Bing.com has just launched an app contest, and open data fans are taking that as a cue. The trend of citizens taking advantage of information the government allows us to have is only growing, and we look forward to the continued positive outcomes.

Show us the lack of money

Nine states are facing worse credit rankings for not reporting their state budgets on time. California, one of the states, is facing a $19 billion shortfall, and may run out of funds by August 1st.

Citigroup is advising their clients on how to short-sell Build America Bonds, and there are a lot more scary scenerios surrounding state budets you can see at State Budget Solutions.org.

My question is where is all this data coming from? During the budget process tracking down the exact proposals for a new budget is hard enough. Finding actual dollar figures or how the debt is calculated remains almost impossible.

Local governments need to stop the spin, participate in “Open Economics” and show us how bad the situation is dollar for dollar.

NYC 2.0: Public data access hearing to address open data accesibility and usability

The New York City Council is holding a hearing today to establish open data standards. All city agencies will be in attendance.

The hearing is based on a bill, Introduction 029-2010 (formerly Intro. 991-2009), which was drafted in an effort to increase government transparency and facilitate access to public data. More access means more interaction between government and citizens. The bill will require the City to create a centralized online repository of all publicly available information either produced or retained by the City. Data published under this legislation must be posted in a format that will be readable by any computer device, whether that is a laptop or a phone.

One important question that needs to be addressed is how the information will be delivered. Along with information comes the responsibility of delivering it to consumers. If data isn’t usable, then more data can actually be a burden. However, the benefit of this legislation is that citizens get more information, but technology-centered businesses will also have the opportunity to display their goods. Socrata, social data experts, note the legislation has more than good government benefits:

*The bill will unlock city data enabling web developers and entrepreneurs to interact with City government in new ways.
*Data published under this legislation will be readable by any computer device for innovative developments.

The benefits so far are: More access, re-energizing of technology sectors, more government involvement, and ultimately cheaper data. Digital Democracy, a nonprofit based out of New York, will focus its testimony on the benefits open data in real time will have for students. “Young people would be engaged in meaningful ways with the world around them.”

Another testimony comes from the Manhattan Institute, which urges the proactive disclosure of information by governments. They suggest posting responses to the state’s Freedom of Information Act, the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), online so that the requester can have an easy to work with digital response, and other citizens can benefit from the availability of the information requested.

In the spirit of Gov 2.0, the hearing is being livecast. Let us know what your favorite panels are and what ideas you think can benefit your city.

Can you film cops?

This week a Seattle Officer was caught on tape punching a girl in the face during an arrest for jaywalking. Which begs the question: Is it legal to film on-duty officers?

In the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland it is illegal to film an on-duty cop. This is enforced through the state’s wiretapping law, or two-party consent law, which says that all parties must consent to being recorded.

Illinois the only state where it is illegal to record any audio for any public officials, including cops, regardless of the expectation of privacy. In Maryland and Massachusetts, if there is not an expectation of privacy than one may videotape the encounter.

A total of twelve states have enacted the “two-party consent law” and you can get a state by state guild to whether or not you can tape an encounter here: Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.

More reading: Wiretapping wars: Filming police should be no crime

DISCLOSE Act attempts to increase transparency. Or something.

The DISCLOSE Act is a congressional response to the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC. The decision struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act, also known as “campaign finance reform,” that prohibited all corporations from broadcasting communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

The DISCLOSE Act, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,” amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and seemingly aims to circumvent the Citizens United ruling by upping the disclosure requirements by corporations’ tv ads. The Act requires the head of an organization to appear in the political ad and the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad, as well as any “significant” funder. The name of the organization must be restated three times; the name of the head of the organization must be restated twice (from this post).

But many are critical of the intentions of the act’s supporters, especially after a round of revisions that have favored large, powerful lobbies. Some are calling it the “Shotgun Sellout.” Here’s one take on it:

If self-styled reformers had any discernable [sic] principles beyond silencing political speakers, they might have recognized that secretly negotiating special treatment for arguably one of the nation’s most powerful and well-funded interest groups might not serve the cause of transparency or limit the influence of big-spending interest groups—goals the pro-regulation crowd supposedly supports.

The exemption made for the NRA would allow any organization meeting the following requirements exemption from the Act:
(1) more than a million dues-paying members,
(2) members in all 50 states,
(3) a 10-year or more history as a tax-exempt group and
(4) less than 15 percent of their funding from business corporations.

Only the NRA, AARP and the Humane Society qualify.

If the purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is transparency, it’s certainly counterproductive to exempt the larger lobbies. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. As it stands, the opposition to the act is greater in numbers than support.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pulled the bill on June 17. The bill was reintroduced and will most likely be voted on Thursday, June 24.

Next Page »