Transparency News 6/21/16
State and Local Stories
Here are the agendas of the FOIA Council meetings this Thursday at the General Assembly Building
Full council, 10:30, House Room C
Records subcommittee, 1:30, House Room C
A hearing Monday in Bill Moody’s lawsuit against his fellow council members shed light on a behind-the-scenes fight over his $1,500 fine. Attorney Kevin Martingayle told a judge that members violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act when they presented a signed letter to Moody in a closed session on Jan. 12. The signatures were a de facto vote to impose the fine, which should have been made in public, he said. Moody was fined because he posted on Facebook ahead of a December closed session that the council would discuss the Confederate war monument. Moody brought $1,500 in cash to the next public meeting “as a visual” and paid his fine in cash as protest that “I had been wronged.” He said he had asked council members whether they were going to make his fine public and got no response. Representing the council, David Corrigan said there was a clause in its letter stating Moody had seven days to argue the fine. “Him paying ended his rights to argue,” Corrigan said. “The only FOIA issue is if there was a secret meeting.”
Virginian-Pilot
Since Hampton Roads is a military town with plenty of federal employees, an AP story reporting federal agencies are stepping up efforts to let federal employees know the rules about political activity got Shad Plank wondering about what rules are. A federal law called the Hatch Act sets the rules for executive branch departments and agencies. And the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal law enforcement agency, says requests for training at all levels of government are surging, the AP reports. Basically, the Hatch Act says no political activity on the job. Away from work, federal employees can voice support or opposition for candidates (even at rallies, as long as they don’t mention their government position). Federal employees can give to campaigns – but they can’t ask others to contribute.
Daily Press
National Stories
Companies frustrated by their inability to mount early round challenges to EPA cleanup decisions are increasingly turning to the Freedom of Information Act for help. Whether the potential benefits from employing FOIA tactics outweigh the attendant risks must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, attorneys and interested parties tell Bloomberg BNA. FOIA gives the public the right to request certain information from federal agencies. If the agency declines to release relevant information, the requester can sue in federal court seeking its release. But FOIA actions are not without risks. They can be very expensive, and, in the context of cleanups under Superfund, may alienate the same attorneys with whom the parties will later have to negotiate, sources say.
Bloomberg BNA
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's administration is keeping a trove of prison documents and videos to itself, preventing the public from examining information about alleged assaults, attempted suicides and the death of an inmate who allegedly overdosed on heroin. In other instances, the Department of Corrections is releasing documents under the state's open records law after months of delay — a practice that freedom of information experts deem improper. Many of the records cover incidents at the state's juvenile prisons that have been under criminal investigation for a year and a half. The information that the department has refused to release has included the most basic of information, such as the names of employees who were under investigation and how much taxpayers spent on them while they were on paid leave.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Editorials/Columns
Among the many disturbing questions surrounding the case of Jamycheal Mitchell is this one: How many more are there? At present, it’s possible that nobody knows. Even worse, it might be impossible to find out. At least one other Portsmouth jail inmate has died recently — this time after being transferred to a state mental hospital. But officials initially refused to disclose any details — not even the person’s gender — because, they claimed, federal law — the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) — wouldn’t let them. We’ll leave it to the lawyers to judge the validity of that claim. If it’s false, then officials are using the law as a shield to hide from public scrutiny. If it’s true, that’s just as bad — because it represents a barrier to transparency that a change in state policy or personnel cannot address.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
