Transparency News, 3/5/21

A draft of a report that was highly critical of the Virginia Parole Board was sent from a state government watchdog to the Virginia Attorney General’s Office one month before a shortened, official version of the report was sent to the Office of the Governor, according to emails obtained by CBS 6. The draft version of the OSIG report, which runs more than 13 pages, contained detailed findings of violations the inspector general said were committed by the former and current parole board chairs. But many of those details were removed from the final six-page report sent to Virginia Public Safety Secretary Brian Moran last July. The longer version of the report is dated June 15, 2020. An email obtained by CBS 6 showed that the next morning, Deputy Inspector General Corrine Louden sent a copy of that draft report to Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Jagels. Westfall is also CC’d on that email, in addition to several other OSIG employees. “OSIG follows its standard administrative investigation process for all Hotline investigations. This includes seeking legal advice when necessary,” Kate Hourin, Communications Director for the Office of the State Inspector General, said when asked why the draft report was emailed to the assistant attorney general.
WTVR
 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued her first signed majority opinion for the Supreme Court on Thursday, siding with the government over an environmental group seeking draft agenda reports about potential harm to endangered species. The 7-to-2 opinion said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not have to provide the Sierra Club the guidance it gave the Environmental Protection Agency about a proposed rule regarding power plants that use water to cool their equipment. Barrett’s opinion, assigned by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a fact-laden interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides the public with access to documents used by the government in making decisions. But there are exceptions to the law, and one concerns the “deliberative process privilege.” It protects documents generated during an agency’s deliberations about policy, as opposed to documents that explain the policy the agency adopts. Barrett said the “in-house drafts” that the Sierra Club sought were protected because they reflected “a preliminary view — not a final decision — about the likely effect of the EPA’s proposed rule on endangered species.”
The Washington Post

A Pulaski County (Arkansas) circuit judge on Tuesday gave the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services 24 hours to produce one set of records to a legal aid nonprofit for low-income people and until Friday to produce a timeline on how long it would need to review and redact another 60,000 pages the nonprofit has sought. Judge Patricia James’ decision came in a lawsuit the Legal Aid of Arkansas filed against the Arkansas Department of Commerce and its Workforce Services Division after the state unemployment agency repeatedly delayed over several months turning over the documents Legal Aid sought under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
Arkansas Democrat Gazette

In 48 states, the governor and the legislature are included in public records requests. Michigan though, is one of the other two. “It’s sort of Michigan’s worst kept secret that we have some of the worst ethics and transparency policies in the entire country,” says Sam Inglot with ‘Progress Michigan’. That’s why the liberal advocacy group is launching a petition drive to put a Freedom of Information Act expansion on the 2022 ballot. It would make the governor’s office and legislature subject to FOIA requests. “This is about transparency across the board, regardless of who is in power,” Inglot says. “There have been Republicans and Democrats in the legislature as well as the governor’s office who have been exempt from FOIA, and what we’re pushing is for transparency across the board,” Inglot said.
WILX

Journalist J.M. Porup had a simple question for the CIA. He filed a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) on May 1, 2015 that asked the Agency for “any and all documents relating to CIA use of poison for covert assassinations.” The CIA responded to the request on May 21, 2015 and made clear it hadn’t even bothered to search its records for an answer to the question, suggesting that because assassinating people is illegal, it simply wouldn’t have documents on it. Now Porup is taking the CIA to court in a case that may have far reaching consequences for the Freedom of Information Act and what documents the public is ultimately able to see.
Vice