Transparency News 1/20/14

Among the flurry of ethics reform bills being proposed throughout the Virginia General Assembly is Senate Bill 212, which would remove Freedom of Information Act exemptions for legislators and their aides. The new FOIA bill, which is part of an ethics package authored by Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax, would remove Delegate Tag Greason’s, R – Potomac Falls, House Bill 1639 less than a year after its approval.  Currently, General Assembly members and legislatives aides are exempt from Virginia’s FOIA act, which means their working papers and written correspondence are unattainable for public viewing. Petersen said SB212 would increase accountability in the Virginia legislature.
Potomac Local

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act has more than 100 exemptions, with more piling up each legislative session. It’s time to scrutinize them all, one lawmaker says, and he’s filed three piece of legislation to work on changes. Delegate Jim LeMunyon has filed a resolution that would charge Virginia’s Freedom of Information Advisory Council, which advises state officials and the public on FOIA-related bills and issues, with reviewing each exemption and deciding which exemptions should be eliminated. Speaker of the House Bill Howell placed LeMunyon on the subcommittee that considers FOIA bills last year.
Watchdog.org Virginia Bureau

A state delegate from Prince William County filed legislation Friday that would formally prohibit Virginia law enforcement agencies from storing license plate information in databases if it is not directly linked to a criminal or terrorism investigation. The bill by Del. Richard L. Anderson (R-Prince William) seeks to codify an advisory opinion issued last year by then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, who said that the state’s “Data Act” prohibited keeping data from license plate readers unless it was “clearly established in advance” to be related to criminal activity.
Washington Post

A button on the website of Sen. Tommy Norment that allows people to contribute to his campaign does not violate the law against General Assembly members raising money during session. That's because it's intentionally broken. A reader ask the Gazette if Norment was violating the rules. The Gazette tried to use the "Contribute" link on Norment's Facebook page Friday, but it was inactive. Clicking the link brought up a message that the requested page "does not exist." That's by design, according to Norment aide Jeff Ryer. "The web page where you can make donations is disabled, which is what we tell our members to do," Ryer wrote in an email Thursday. "If someone clicks on the link, it takes them to where the donation page used to be." Members of the General Assembly, the party legislative caucuses, the governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are all barred from raising campaign money during the legislative session. The state's Republican and Democratic parties can raise money under a law that's been in effect for a decade.
Virginia Gazette

Former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell asked the top Democrat in the state Senate and the speaker of the House of Delegates to call the U.S. Attorney’s Office last week to attest to his character, the senator and a spokesman for the speaker said Saturday. Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (Fairfax) said he and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) placed the call together, leaving a message. Howell later received a call indicating that the U.S. attorney had declined their offer.
Washington Post

National Stories

A blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless she acted negligently, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. Crystal Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post she wrote accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. A lower court judge had found that Obsidian did not have to prove that Cox acted negligently because Cox failed to submit evidence of her status as a journalist. But in the ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Cox deserved a new trial, regardless of the fact that she is not a traditional reporter.
Reuters

Research is central to the presidential library system, and officials at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum say they’re eager to help the public access information. There are different ways to request records:
By mail: The address is George W. Bush Presidential Library, c/o FOIA Coordinator, 2943 SMU Blvd., Dallas 75205
By fax: The number is 214-346-1558. Include a cover sheet.
By email: The address is gwbush.library@nara.gov. Include your name in the subject line.
All requests must be in writing. They must say the records are being sought under the (federal) Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. Officials have 20 days to respond, but it will probably be much longer before any records are actually released.
Dallas Morning News

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the IRS has released a series of documents, including training materials used by agents relating to how it recognizes and treats exempt organizations like nonprofits. The FOIA request was made by Tax Analysts, a nonprofit organization that provides research and analysis of federal, state, and international taxes. The organization made the request in May 2013 following the controversy regarding the determinations office's handling of exemption applications from conservative organizations. Tax Analysts brought suit against the IRS in August, seeking expedited processing of the request. The IRS released roughly 1,000 pages in September, followed by another 1,800 pages in November. A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on January 7 ordered that the IRS produce the remaining documents responsive to the FOIA request by January 15.
CPA Practice Advisor

Proponents of E-Verify, the Internet-based system to verify that a person is eligible to work in the United States, often tout its supposed speed and reliability. A recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Cato has shed some light on how long it takes for the government to resolve contested tentative non-confirmations (TNC). The data should temper some enthusiasm for the system.
Cato Institute

The Environmental Protection Agency has told farmers and ranchers it is sorry for handing private information about them over to environmental groups, but agriculture advocates who fear attacks from eco-terrorists say it's like closing the barn door after the horses escaped. In response to Freedom of Information Requests, the federal agency released information on up to 100,000 agriculture industry workers, including their home address and phone numbers, GPS coordinates and even personal medical histories. The agency later acknowledged much of the information should never have been provided, and even asked the recipients to give it back.
Fox News

It was a job lost in 140 characters. Attorney Sarah Peterson Herr was a researcher at an appellate court in Kansas. According to her own disciplinary hearing, she watched a high-profile trial on a computer in her office and Tweeted her observations, speculations and reactions. Tweets included lofty observations, such as “Holy balls, there are literally 15 cops here for the Phil Kline case today” and “you don’t think a sealed document is meant to be confidential. BURN.”  She also estimated that the man on trial, who was a lawyer on his own disciplinary proceeding, would be suspended for a period of 7 years.
Law Technology News

Editorials/Columns

News Leader: A federal appeals court ruled last week that the Federal Communications Commission went beyond its authority in writing rules to enforce technical fairness on the internet. The D.C. court didn’t weigh in on whether so-called net neutrality is good or bad, just that the method chosen to enforce it was improper under our telecommunications laws, many of which date to a very different technological time. So be it. But net neutrality needs to survive, and the path ahead might actually require more stringent and detailed regulation in the public’s interest than the rules just tossed out.

Sen. Chap Petersen, Virginian-Pilot: In Virginia, it is presumed that the traditional way of doing things is necessarily the best way. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the state's lax ethics rules, which assume that members of the General Assembly and our governor will honor the "gentleman's agreement" to pursue public service for the purest motives, not for individual gain. We can no longer rely upon that assumption. First, and most critical, is the need for more transparency. Senate Bill 212 will let the sun shine in by repealing the General Assembly's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Currently, FOIA applies to all local officials in Virginia, but the General Assembly is blissfully free from this landmark law, which gives immediate access to publicly owned work papers and emails.

Cape Charles Wave: At 5:15 p.m. Thursday, members of Cape Charles Town Council will go behind closed doors at Town Hall for an “executive session.” (The Wave has been criticized in the past for referring to such meetings as “secret.”) Virginia state law requires almost every action, or even discussion, by publicly elected or appointed bodies to be open to the public, with records available. There are only a few exceptions — personnel matters being the most important. If Town Council wishes to interview candidates for, say, chief of police, the candidates understandably deserve privacy. But today, Town Council is meeting to consider buying or selling property. That much we know, because state law requires the Town to state the reason for its “executive” session. So, we know that today Town Council will discuss property leased by the Town, with the idea of buying it, and property owned by the Town, with the idea of selling it. What we don’t know is — just what property? The only allowance under state law to privately discuss the sale or purchase of property is if “discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy” of the Town. Note that any “adverse effect” must be on the Town – not the other party.

Nicolaus Mills, CNN: Fifty years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a libel case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, that at the time few thought would go on to achieve landmark status. The Sullivan case, despite its roots in the early civil rights movement and the career of Martin Luther King Jr., is still little-known outside legal and media circles. But as it marks its 50th anniversary, Sullivan deserves to be revisited. No contemporary Supreme Court case has done more to define modern freedom of the press. Sullivan had its origins in a fundraising ad, "Heed Their Rising Voices," that the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South placed in The New York Times on March 29, 1960.