|
Government rulers - F*ck the public records laws!
Well they don't say that, but that's how the operate!
This article doesn't say it but the public record laws are a joke which pretends that the public has access to government records. In reality there are absolutely NO penalties for government tyrants who refuse to obey the Arizona public record laws. In Arizona your only option is suing the government rulers and the law says you MIGHT be able to get the cost of your legal fees paid if you win the lawsuit.
Republic looks at 3 public-records cases Conflicts between reporters and government still arise Mar. 13, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic More than a century after Arizona's first public-records law was passed, conflicts over the release of public documents between agencies and journalists - or any citizen - are as prevalent as ever. People in pursuit of records often believe government isn't transparent enough. Public officials want to keep certain aspects of their work private, saying it helps make them be more effective public servants. As part of "Sunshine Week," an annual initiative sponsored by the American Society of News Editors to promote freedom of information, The Arizona Republic examined three open-records issues that reporters and officials have wrestled over in the past year. Two were resolved; one is ongoing. Each may add to the tide of precedents or understanding of what the public has a right to know and what can legally be kept secret or not made easily available. Draft reports Is a government agency's early draft of a report a public record? Some cities don't think so. They have refused to release what they call "incomplete" reports, saying it would harm their negotiations or interests. In Scottsdale, the debate arose over a consultant's traffic study of a proposed crosswalk linking Kierland Commons to the Scottsdale Quarter. Phoenix and Scottsdale initially refused The Republic's request to release the Feb. 9 study on the crosswalk, saying it would hurt negotiations between the two cities and owners of the two shopping centers on either side of Scottsdale Road. The newspaper requested the study, reported the refusal and followed with a second set of letters seeking the record. The letters cited specific language in the Arizona Public Records Law and noted the law does not exempt draft reports from disclosure. The two cities released the study on Tuesday. In Surprise, the record in question was a consultant's audit concerning the city's misspending of $73 million. The city did not respond to The Republic's request for six weeks. In their response, Surprise officials at first cited attorney-client privilege, then later said they would release the document when it was "complete." David Bodney, an attorney for The Republic, sent a letter to the city on Jan. 20 urging release and stating that drafts are not exempted by the public-records law. He sent a second demand letter before The Republic filed papers Feb. 11 in Maricopa County Superior Court, asking a judge to order release of the audit. Bodney wrote in filings that based on the city's assertion that the audit is incomplete, the court can "reasonably infer that the city is aiming to release a 'final' report sanitized of embarrassing facts, while obstructing access to underlying records that may tell a different story." On Feb. 22, the Surprise City Council voted to authorize release of the final version. The Republic received the draft, final version and related e-mails the next day. Student-privacy law A federal law designed to protect student-privacy rights has been in place for more than three decades. But battles persist between schools and the media and schools and students over what the law protects. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was passed in 1974 and, media lawyers say, was intended mainly to allow students to keep certain information, such as grade transcripts, private. Some colleges and school districts are making broad interpretations of the definition of an "educational record." Some school districts, for example, cite FERPA as a reason to first obtain parents' permission if media want to photograph children in K-12 classrooms. Some colleges won't let media into classrooms without students' permission; other schools have no problems granting access. The Columbus Dispatch did a six-month investigation in 2009 that found that there is no consensus among universities over what is a private student educational record. Some universities used the law to shield virtually all information about students. In Arizona, in the wake of the shooting rampage near Tucson on Jan. 8, The Republic and other news media sought records from Pima Community College on the behavior of defendant Jared Loughner. He was a student there until October; he was suspended after disrupting classes and posting a video online in which he ranted against the college. The college released campus police incident reports describing Loughner's bizarre behavior in classes during 2010. But the school refused to provide hundreds of e-mails sent between college officials related to Loughner. It asserts this would violate FERPA and could lead to fines by the federal government. The Republic argues that the e-mails are not education records that are part of Loughner's student file. In addition, FERPA is designed to address a systematic practice of releasing private student information, the newspaper says. The college's e-mails involve a onetime release concerning an unusual event of national significance and are subject to the state's public-records law, The Republic contends. The request is still pending. Cost of records It can cost anywhere from 10 cents to $1 a page to copy a public record at Valley cities, police departments and other agencies. The total cost is small when someone wants only a handful of copies. But if hundreds of pages are requested - and many agency reports can run that length - the cost can easily climb into hundreds of dollars. Increasingly, Republic reporters are using portable scanners to copy large sets of public documents. The scanners load the images into a laptop computer. Initially, journalists ran into resistance. Last year, Arizona State University told a reporter she would have to pay 20 cents per page for using the newspaper's scanner to copy a few hundred documents. She maintained that there should be no charge because using the scanner was equivalent to inspection of the public records and the university would incur no appreciable costs. The state Public Records Law provides that "public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours." Days later, ASU reversed its position and allowed copies to be scanned for free by the reporter. Months later, Maricopa County also permitted a Republic reporter to spend two days making hundreds of copies without charge. As technological advances continue to miniaturize copying and photographic devices, journalists and members of the public will find it easier to obtain copies of records at little or no cost. Republic reporters Anne Ryman, Peter Corbett and Dustin Gardiner contributed to this article. Public Records Law The Arizona Public Records Law dates back to 1901, meaning it is 11 years older than the state of Arizona. It was approved by the Territorial Legislature in Prescott. Dan Barr, a media attorney for the Perkins Coie firm in Phoenix, said the law was the product of the turn-of-the-century Progressive Movement, in which people reacted to industrialization and business monopolies to fight for social justice. That era came to an end with the outbreak of World War I. In the decades after the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, news media began using state open-records laws and the federal Freedom of Information Act, approved in 1966, more aggressively to report on government. Increasingly, citizens are following suit. A key part of Arizona's public-records law - ARS 39-121 - has remained unchanged since 1901: "Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours."
Lawmakers' cell phones often out of public reach JULIE CARR SMYTHJULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) It was 1992 and Ohio Senate President Stanley Aronoff was on the golf course when his cell phone rang. The Republican lawmaker stepped away from his companions, Coca-Cola executives, to take the call. When the exchange was over, Aronoff and then-Democratic House Speaker Vernal Riffe had agreed to wedge an unpopular carbonated beverage tax into that year's state budget. At a penny per 12 ounces, the decision would cost distributors of Coke and other sodas $67 million that's $148 million in today's dollars. And it happened right under their noses. Lawmakers are increasingly conducting public business on their personal cell phones, through calls and text messages. Yet the numbers for those phones and the bills that show whom lawmakers called or texted and when are largely unavailable to the public for review. Legislatures don't pay those bills, which is among the reasons that records related to the phones aren't considered public under state law. Records requests submitted by The Associated Press to the Ohio Senate, the Ohio House and Gov. John Kasich seeking the personal cell phone numbers of top staff, lawmakers and the governor, along with related phone bills, revealed that no such public records exist. All that turned up was a list of House staff members' cell phones that had been typed up for internal distribution no information for lawmakers themselves. It is the same in most other states. Only a few, including Florida, Colorado and Tennessee, have placed electronic communications under their open-records laws, according to the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press. In Michigan, the high-profile case of former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, whose text messages with his lover and top aide were forced into the open by the state Court of Appeals in 2008, set an early precedent for establishing officials' texts and cell phone records as public. But that doesn't mean public bodies are compelled to keep such records, nor that texts retained by a private company can be reached through open-records laws. And the law isn't even decided on what legal standard to apply to text messages. Are they phone calls, e-mails or memos? Some states have moved toward shielding, rather than opening, the records. Just in the past week, Utah Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law a measure to prohibit release of public officials' text messages, voice mails and other electronic communications, amid concern that access had been abused by journalists. Brenda Erickson, a senior research analyst for the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, said 31 states including Ohio ban or limit the use of electronic devices on the floors of House and Senate chambers. Erickson said such policies are generally aimed at controlling disruptions, not preventing inappropriate communication between or among lawmakers or limiting lobbyists' reach. Cell phone and texting restrictions are often not effective in committee hearings, the front line on any bill, she said. "It happens all the time, and people do it to avoid disclosure," said Neil Clark, a former Senate finance director and longtime Statehouse lobbyist in Ohio who facilitated Aronoff's cell phone call on the pop tax, which was later repealed. The practice means silent text messages can fly between a lawmaker and a lobbyist seeking to sway his or her vote without a public hint of the interaction. A list of cell communications that took place on the day of a hearing would not be a public record. Clark said he asked legislative leaders to extend a ban on texting during floor sessions to Ohio committee hearings. As a lawyer who has extensively explored privacy issues, Aronoff says whether the bill for the cell phone he used that day on the golf course in 1992 is a public record is not a simple question. For one thing, lawmakers are generally protected by "legislative privilege," which shields certain communications so lawmakers aren't impeded from freely doing their jobs. "These things are never quite as easy because these are both constitutional rights: the right of privacy and the right to know," Aronoff said. "From the beginning of our country, these have been two rights that are bumping into each other and you can make good cases for all of them. Is giving truth serum right or not?" Aronoff retired as Senate president in 1996. Riffe, the House speaker, died in 1997. Erickson said the cell phone conundrum began with the best intentions. Legislatures trying to save taxpayers money opted not to pay for lawmakers' private cell phones. As the technology has become pervasive, legislators have been able to circumvent public disclosure by avoiding their more likely public land lines. Many avoid their state-sponsored e-mail accounts, too, recognizing that those communications are more readily available through public records requests. And there is another twist, Erickson says: Even state legislators' activity on taxpayer-funded phones has been determined to be confidential in some recent court challenges to public records laws. "It's one of those Catch-22 situations," Erickson said. "Do you require everything to be open and then penalize constituents who are requesting confidentiality, or close everything and have ethical problems arise later on?" Associated Press
Government transparency appears little improved Mar. 15, 2011 12:00 AM Associated Press WASHINGTON - Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency, the Obama administration took action on fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information. The administration disclosed at least some of what people wanted at about the same rate as the previous year. Under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, people last year requested information 544,360 times from the 35 largest agencies, up nearly 41,000 from the previous year, according to an analysis of new federal data by the Associated Press. But the government responded to nearly 12,400 fewer requests. The administration refused to release any sought-after materials in more than 1-in-3 information requests, including cases when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper under the law. It refused more often to quickly consider information requests about subjects described as urgent or especially newsworthy. And nearly half the agencies that AP examined took longer - weeks more, in some cases - to give out records last year than during the previous year. There were some improvements. The administration less frequently invoked the "deliberative-process" exemption under the law to withhold records describing decision-making behind the scenes. President Barack Obama had directed agencies to use it less often, but the number of such cases had surged after his first year in office, to more than 71,000. It fell last year to 53,360. The exemption was still commonly invoked last year at the Homeland Security Department, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of cases across the whole government. The White House said it was voluntarily disclosing more information, forestalling a need to make requests under the law, and said agencies released information in nearly 93 percent of cases. At a Monday event celebrating Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli announced the unveiling of a website, foia.gov, to provide the public with a centralized resource on how to file requests for government records.
Source Japan fears a nuclear disaster after reactor breach By Laura King, Ralph Vartabedian and Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Times Staff Writer March 15, 2011, 3:22 a.m. Reporting from Tokyo and Los Angeles Dangerous levels of radiation escaped a quake-stricken nuclear power plant after one reactor's steel containment structure was apparently breached by an explosion, and a different reactor building in the same complex caught fire after another explosion, Japan's leaders told a frightened population. Authorities warned that people within 20 miles of the crippled reactors should stay indoors to avoid being sickened by radiation. The fast-moving developments at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) plant, 150 miles north of Tokyo, catapulted the 4-day-old nuclear crisis to an entirely new level, threatening to overshadow even the massive damage and loss of life spawned by a devastating earthquake and tsunami. Prime Minister Naoko Kan, in a nationwide address to the Japanese people, called for calm even as he acknowledged the radiation peril. Dressed in industrial-style blue coveralls, he offered solemn assurances that authorities were doing "everything we can" to contain the leakage. Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction "There is a danger of even higher radiation levels," he said chilling words to a nation where the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the waning days of World War II are known to every schoolchild. Slightly elevated radiation was detected in Tokyo, but not at health-affecting levels, officials said. Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, speaking shortly afterward, said radiation levels around the plant's six reactors had climbed to the extent that "without a doubt would affect a person's health." But he insisted that outside the existing 12-mile evacuation zone, there was little or no health danger. But people anywhere close to the plant were told to turn off ventilators drawing air from outdoors and not to hang laundry in the open air in order to avoid contamination. The announcements, more than 12 hours after the situation at the Unit 2 reactor at the Fukushima plant began to deteriorate with the exposure of its fuel rods to air, heightening the threat of meltdown, generated anger and fear in the earthquake-affected area and beyond. Many Japanese do not believe that either the government or the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., have been forthcoming about the extent of the danger amid a series of malfunctions at Fukushima. The mayor of a small city that falls partly within the evacuation zone offered an unusually harsh public critique of the utility and Kan's administration. "The government and Tokyo Electric Power have neglected to update residents with accurate information," Kazunobu Sakurai, the mayor of Minamisoma, told the public broadcaster NHK. "We need the government to keep us informed, to send emergency supplies and to help move residents who are inside the evacuation zone." Survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings in World War II have been criticizing the nuclear power company's handling of the crisis. "Nuclear power generation has been said to be safe but it was proved that it's very fragile," Hirotami Yamada, 79, bureau chief of the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors Council, told Kyodo. The explosion followed an early morning acknowledgment from Tokyo Electric Power that, because of human error, the fuel rods inside the Unit 2 reactor had been at least partly exposed to air for more than two hours during two separate incidents the previous evening, allowing them to heat up and causing a buildup of explosive hydrogen gas. Independent experts said it was a grave development that heightened the risk of an uncontrolled release of radiation into the environment. Authorities also disclosed that a fire broke out at the complex' Unit 4 after a blast left two gaping holes in an outer wall. The fire was later reported to have been extinguished, though it was unclear what caused it. The International Atomic Energy Agency said Japanese officials told them that the explosion and subsequent fire were located at the unit's spent-fuel storage pond and that radioactivity was being released directly into the atmosphere. By Tuesday afternoon, Kyodo was reporting that the pond was boiling because the water level was too low. Authorities also reported that the only two reactors where explosions have not occurred Units 5 and 6 were registering rising temperatures. The U.S. government mobilized emergency resources to help Japan grapple with the developing nuclear crisis, dispatching a team of Nuclear Regulatory Commission experts late Monday, activating an atmospheric radioactivity monitoring center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the Bay Area and rushing additional Navy ships to the region. In the best-case scenario, the situation at the damaged reactors will take weeks, if not months, to stabilize, U.S. nuclear experts said. "They do not have the situation under control," said Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former Energy Department official. The company's acknowledgement that a "suppression pool" at the bottom of Unit 2, designed to serve as a last line of defense against a meltdown, was believed to have been breached could represent a major escalation of the crisis, said Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "If that is true, then there is a path to the control room, the workers and the outside environment," he said. The cooling problems at Unit 2 represent the most serious development yet in the crisis at the plant, said nuclear specialist Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. When the fuel rods get too hot and react with water, they produce hydrogen gas that vents from the reactor into the containment building. When enough hydrogen accumulates, it becomes explosive. Containment buildings around two other reactors at the Fukushima complex already suffered explosions, on Saturday and Monday. Engineers had begun using fire hoses to pump seawater into the Unit 2 reactor the third at the plant to receive the last-ditch treatment after the emergency cooling system failed. Company officials said workers were not paying sufficient attention to the process, however, and let the pump stall, allowing the fuel rods to become partially exposed to the air. Once the pump was restarted and water flow was restored, another worker inadvertently closed a valve that was designed to vent steam from the containment vessel. As pressure built up inside the vessel, the pumps could no longer force water into it and the fuel rods were once again exposed. Four officials from Tokyo Electric Power in dark suits and looking somber began their nationally televised news conference hours after the onset of the problems at the Unit 2 reactor by bowing and apologizing for the worry caused. In something of a contradiction, officials at Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that, even in a worst-case scenario, the three troubled reactors at Fukushima had been depressurized by the release of radioactive steam, which would decrease the destructiveness of any breach, according to Kyodo News. But other nuclear experts said it remained possible that an overheated uranium core in any of these reactors could melt down and breach its containment vessel, exposing the environment to a radioactive plume. The seriousness of the situation was further underscored Monday when the French Embassy in Tokyo advised its citizens to move away from Japan's capital to protect themselves against possible radiation exposure. A flight ban was imposed within 20 miles of the Fukushima plant because of the radiation danger. Air China and two Taiwanese carriers, Eva Airlines and China Airlines, canceled flights to Japan over radiation fears. The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet also said Monday that it had ordered the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan away from Fukushima after detecting low-level contamination when it was about 100 miles northeast. Nearly 200,000 Japanese had already been evacuated from a 12-mile zone surrounding the plant, and the company said it had moved 750 workers away from the plant, leaving 50 to deal with the crisis. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that it had received a formal request from Japan for assistance and was sending 10 people with expertise in boiling-water reactors. Agency spokesman Scott Burnell said the experts knew that they might have to "undergo radiation doses larger than normal." Another serious risk involves the more than 200 tons of spent nuclear fuel that is stored in pools adjacent to the reactors, Alvarez said. Those cooling pools depend on continually circulating water to keep the fuel rods from catching fire. Without power to circulate the water, it heats up and potentially boils away, leaving the fuel rods exposed to air. An aerial image of the Fukushima plant shows the loss of high-capacity cranes needed to move equipment to service the reactor. The photo also appears to show that the spent fuel pool is steaming hot, which may indicate the water is boiling off, Alvarez said. U.S. nuclear experts said they were particularly concerned about the Unit 3 reactor because it is fueled in part with plutonium, an element used in hydrogen bombs that can be more difficult to control than the enriched uranium normally used to fuel nuclear power plants. The U.S. Department of Energy activated the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center at Livermore to create sophisticated computer models of how the radioactive releases from Fukushima No. 1 would disburse into the atmosphere. The center, which was created to deal with contamination in the event of a nuclear war, played a key role in predicting contamination patterns during the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear crisis. Even before the admission of how serious the problems at the Fukushima complex had become, there were signs that the legendary patience and politeness of Japanese in the face of such adversity was wearing thin. In Natori, north of Tokyo, the top floor of the City Hall was repurposed into a disaster-relief center. There, in an oft-repeated scene, a woman in red pants and a brown coat berated government workers for sitting comfortably in their offices with heat, 24-hour power and water while the rest of the prefecture lacked basic services. Voice cracking, she said the government had been far too slow in restoring the electricity and repairing roads and basic infrastructure. "She's complaining that our operation doesn't work so well," said Chizuko Nakajima, a government worker in the senior citizen department, who was helping distribute food as an emergency volunteer. "Actually, it's true. We're so overwhelmed." Adding to the sense of anxiety, strong aftershocks have rippled across a wide area since Friday's quake, with fresh jolts shaking Tokyo on Tuesday. Japan's Meteorological Agency said Saturday there was a 70% probability of another powerful temblor in the coming three days. Photos: Scenes of earthquake destruction ralph.vartabedian@latimes.com laura.king@latimes.com thomas.maugh@latimes.com King reported from Tokyo and Vartabedian and Maugh from Los Angeles. Times staff writers Barbara Demick in Sendai, Mark Magnier in Natori and David Pierson in Beijing contributed to this report. Special correspondents Kenji Hall and Yuriko Nagano contributed from Tokyo.
Source Politicians' Facebook posts raise legal worry Some discussions can violate meeting laws by Edythe Jensen - Mar. 17, 2011 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Politicians' Facebook discussions are blurring the lines between official business and personal opinions, which has experts concerned that elected officials may run afoul of Arizona's Public Records Law and the Open Meeting Law. In city councils across the Valley, many members designate constituents and fellow elected officials as "friends" on the popular social-media site, then engage in fragmented debates on local issues between postings about festivals and family outings. In the southeast Valley, a Chandler councilman's personal Facebook page even led to informal budget-brainstorming discussions with elected officials from Tempe, Mesa and Gilbert. Although no official decisions are being made on Facebook, the informal discussions could lead to breaches of local government regulations. Under state law, electronic communications made or received "in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business" must be preserved as a public record. But most local governments have no means to screen and preserve Facebook discussions on officials' personal pages, which often are open to their online "friends" but not to the rest of the public. It's also a violation of Arizona's Open Meeting Law when a majority of a city council holds an electronic discussion that hasn't been posted as a public meeting. In municipalities like Chandler and Gilbert, the majority of council members are Facebook friends who could easily hold impromptu electronic discussions, although there is no evidence they have done so. Matt Lore, spokesman for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said the organization is scrambling to develop guidelines and educate municipal officials prone to engage constituents on a personal level. "Where's the line drawn between just being 'Bob' and being 'Bob the mayor'?" Media-law attorney Dan Barr said that when an elected official's Facebook page contains an official photo or reference to the person's public post and invites interaction with constituents, "it comes closer to coverage of public-records law than a Facebook page mostly dealing with his or her personal life." And if a city council member is communicating with a quorum of other members outside of a posted public meeting, the official could breaking the Open Meeting Law. "The same principles apply no matter what the technology," Barr said. Jerry Kirkpatrick, records manager for the state archives, said the agency has been inundated with social-media questions from local government officials. He also is grappling with the daunting prospect of having to retain unprecedented volumes of social-media dialog as "permanent public records." Because there is no policy for archivists to cull what state law considers "public record" from a social-media dialog, Kirkpatrick advises officials not to put unique information in social-media communications. As many elected officials accumulate hundreds or thousands of Facebook "friends," it's unclear how much of the chatter must be retained as public records. Nor is it clear who, if anyone, is going to read through postings to separate "what I ate for lunch" from "let's talk about the new zoning rules." "If they invite the public to talk about issues that may come up at a meeting or about new policies," that could be considered a permanent public record, Kirkpatrick said. "This is a conundrum public agencies are under in the changing communications world we live in. Our laws are archaic." Legal advice to city officials about social-media use has been spotty, but municipal lawyers across the state are talking about the issue, Chandler City Attorney Mary Wade said. "The world is spinning so fast that departments everywhere are freaking out about the sheer volume of records retention," she said. "We're talking to the state and trying to catch up." Several city officials said that when a policy discussion or constituent complaint surfaces on Facebook, they ask the individuals to send their comments to the city e-mail system, which is archived as a public record. But others use the page as a virtual "town hall" and welcome such discussions. Phoenix spokeswoman Margaret Shalley said the city is working on a social-media policy that will likely include council members' personal pages. "It's very, very tricky, and we're being very careful how we're approaching this," she said, adding that Phoenix will likely advise elected officials not to discuss any public-policy issues on Facebook. Political consultant David Leibowitz operates Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's Facebook page and said it is used to repeat civic announcements and share news links, not to engage in policy discussions. With 5,000 "friends," Gordon does not have time to engage with all of them, Leibowitz said. In contrast, Tempe Councilwoman Onnie Shekerjian gets personal on her page, where she also talks about city business. "I don't post press releases; I use Facebook so people know who I am. . . . I am more than a public official." Her family, vegetable-gardening hobby, and a former insomnia problem were on Shekerjian's page beside chats about "positive" city issues, she said. Mesa Mayor Scott Smith said he was "very well-schooled by the city attorney" on Facebook use and uses it only to disseminate city news and photos. But Chandler Councilman Jeff Weninger considers his Facebook page an electronic town hall and personal "branding" medium. He posts constantly, links to video chats and hosts public surveys. Weninger doesn't duck political dialog and controversy. Among recent posts about his wife's birthday and the Chandler Ostrich Festival was one in which he called on state Sen. Scott Bundgaard to resign his leadership position amid a domestic-violence investigation. "I don't shy away from issues; it's all about having a conversation," he said. "I talk about decisions at work, the council, what movie I'm going to see." Weninger said that he would resist any ruling that muzzles policy talk on Facebook and that he has those same conversations over the counter at restaurants he owns. Shekerjian said a political conversation on Weninger's Facebook page recently brought a few elected leaders from Tempe, Chandler, Mesa and Gilbert together for informal meetings about budget challenges. Barr, the lawyer, said that so long as there was not a quorum from any of the council members, the gatherings did not violate the state's Open Meeting Law. Weninger said he is careful not to skirt the meeting law and doesn't simultaneously discuss city policies with the four other Chandler council members who are his Facebook friends. John Allcott, a Chandler school-bus driver and retired postal carrier, is a frequent poster on Weninger's Facebook wall. He regularly weighs in on city issues, especially involving public money. Allcott, 49, said he didn't know the exchange could be considered public record but said it doesn't bother him "because I know anything I write on the Internet is public." Glendale Councilman Phil Lieberman considers his Facebook page an extension of his open political persona. "I'm listed in the phone book," he said. "I attempt to make myself as available as I possibly can in any form of media. I have nothing to hide."
Source Why government's doors must be open By Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY The advocacy group is assigning its members to track every member of the House and Senate, monitoring their every legislative move. "We have millions of manpower hours and thousands of people willing to do heavy lifting," Shelby Blakely, the project organizer, told USA TODAY. Meanwhile, in the Midwest, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has announced its " Citizen Vigil for the Greater Good," using volunteers to closely monitor special interests in their role in shaping legislation. All over America, taxpayers concerned about government spending or overreaching are demanding greater scrutiny. They want to know how decisions are being made and what those decisions mean for the community. The good news is that governments can be more responsive and accessible to the people they serve by embracing two easy low-cost principles: Open the doors to public meetings. And unlock the public's records. Let it flow This is Sunshine Week, a national effort organized by the American Society of News Editors, the news media and open-government advocates. It's an annual reminder of the importance of the free flow of information in a democracy. Taxpayers hire public employees to serve and protect, not to keep secrets from them. We don't know as much about government actions as we should because many institutions still cloak their activities by closing certain public meetings and limiting access to documents. Federal and state laws give governments the right to withhold information under certain circumstances, but officials often overreach, keeping the public's business out of the public eye. "It's part human nature and part power" when officials fail to disclose information to the public, says Frank Gibson, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. "Public officials are fearful that if they've made a mistake, they'll get into trouble if it gets exposed, so they try to hang onto everything." This is not the exotica of WikiLeaks, diplomatic cables or classified information. Most public records requests address the meat-and-potatoes of government operations. It was a public records request that led Los Angeles Times reporters to disclose that Bell, Calif., was paying its city manager almost $800,000 a year and its city council members about $100,000 each, compensation made possible by converting Bell into a charter city. When reporters first asked for documents detailing the compensation, they were stonewalled. "Literally every day, I'm calling the city clerk," reporter Jeff Gottlieb told National Public Radio. "I really don't want to sue you, but we will, and when we go to court ... we'll ask the judge to make you pay our legal bills, because that's what the statute says." The documents were eventually handed over, bizarrely enough, in a city park. The disclosures led to the arrest of eight Bell officials on corruption charges. The Los Angeles Times was able to ferret out this abuse of government power because of a strong public records law. But those laws are always under fire, largely by state legislators who want to limit public access: The Associated Press released a 50-state overview of freedom of information last week, concluding that "efforts to boost openness often are being thwarted by old patterns of secrecy." Last week, the Utah Legislature set July 1 as the start for a sweeping set of exemptions that would bar the public from seeing legislators' text messages or the content of voice mails, as well as any communications between legislators and the public. The bill also would bump up the fee for access to public records. A bill was introduced last month in the Georgia legislature that would keep secret any discussions with a company considering moving to the state, with the public being informed only after a deal was cut. A similar bill proposed in Tennessee would allow local governments to keep those negotiation details secret for up to five years. Freedom-of-information advocates have long fought these battles, but they say there has been a perceptible public shift that will help ensure future access. For years, the nation's news media have campaigned to keep public meetings open and records accessible. Now citizens are joining that fight. "I would attribute that to the addition of the word 'transparency' to the political lexicon," says Gibson, who has worked on freedom-of-information issues for almost three decades. Even as cash-strapped news organizations scale back some of their legal fights to access records, others are stepping up. Last year, the Knight Foundation provided a $2 million grant over three years to the National Freedom of Information Coalition to help fight these battles in court. What taxpayers need, deserve Most important, though, are the many voices demanding greater government accountability. Disclosure strengthens democracy and allows us to assess a community's path in an informed and constructive way. Taxpayers need to know who is on the public payroll and how much they're making. They need to understand what projects the community is committing to, and their potential impact on the public and its pocketbook. They deserve to see public issues aired in open sessions, with proper notice and the opportunity for input. The best town councils and local governments see public access and public service as one and the same, and their communities are much better for it.
Arizona's Public Records LawsArizona's Public Record laws are in a chapter called Title 39, which can be found here.A few of the key parts are: |
||
Summary of Arizona Public Record Laws |
||
39-121. Inspection of public records
Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.39-121.01. Definitions; maintenance of records; copies, printouts or photographs of public records; examination by mail; index A. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:39-121.02. Action on denial of access; costs and attorney fees; damages A. Any person who has requested to examine or copy public records pursuant to this article, and who has been denied access to or the right to copy such records, may appeal the denial through a special action in the superior court, pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions against the officer or public body.39-122. Free searches for and copies of public records to be used in claims against United States; liability for noncompliance A. No state, county or city, or any officer or board thereof shall demand or receive a fee or compensation for issuing certified copies of public records or for making search for them, when they are to be used in connection with a claim for a pension, allotment, allowance, compensation, insurance or other benefits which is to be presented to the United States or a bureau or department thereof. |
||