According to recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, the American Society of News Editors is going to lay off its sole staffer dedicated to coordinating national Sunshine Week. This is a sad day for FOI.

Debra Gersh Hernandez, who is likely to be given the ax Wednesday, has served FOI well, fostering hundreds of access articles and projects throughout the country for the past four years. The week in March has provided an outstanding news peg for journalists to write about FOI and educate citizens. I suspect it’s made a big difference in fostering support for access.

But times are tough in journalism now. It’s been great that ASNE could sponsor the effort, courtesy of grant funding from the Knight Foundation. According to the CJR article, ASNE couldn’t find enough corporate donations from the news industry to match a challenge grant from Knight that would have kept Sunshine Week staffed forever.

Apparently ASNE hopes to keep Sunshine Week alive without a full-time staffer by using existing ASNE staff. That’s laudible, but it won’t be enough. I’ve seen what Hernandez does behind the scenes and it’s a full-time job – coordinating hundreds of volunteers, disseminating information, gathering and posting finished work online. We need a full-time staffer dedicated to the cause, whether it come from ASNE, Knight, SPJ, or some other organization. This public awareness campaign is too valuable to short-change.

The problem, I know, is times are tough and grant funding is moving toward digital media and finding ways to save journalism. The traditional stuff, like FOI, is not as sexy. Also, with a new president who claims to support FOI, the perceived need for FOI advocacy has probably waned some. But the reality is access is no better today than it was five years ago. I hope someone, somewhere will step up to keep the momentum going and keep Sunshine Week strong. It’s too important to let fade.

So much for the talk of transparency. Despite a pledge to reverse secretive policies of the Bush admininstration, President Obama continues to try to keep White House visitor logs secret, denying a request from msnbc.com (see a good story on this today by investigative reporter Bill Dedman).

Obama says he wants the records secret because it might reveal job applicants or ambassadors who want a private chat. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington  and msnbc.com want the records to see who is schmoozing the president to influence national policy. According to the article, CREW says it will sue for the records. Good for them!

The legal battle is over technicalities – whether the agency that maintains the logs, the Secret Service, is subject to FOIA. I think it’s silly to argue over technicalities – two courts already have said the Secret Service is subject to FOIA. But regardless of those past rulings and what White House lawyers say today, sometimes we get caught up in the nuances of the law, wranging over the gray area of definitions. Instead, let’s all step back and look at it from the perspective of what makes sense:

First, which is more important, the personal feelings of an ambassador or job applicant, or the American public understanding who is really behind national policies? I’ll side with the American public.

Second, in nearly every city and state, mayors and governors must make available their calendars and schedule of visitors – that way we can see what they are doing and see who is influencing them. If it makes sense for mini-executives throughout the nation, why not for our uber-executive?

Third, the president can still redact names if disclosure would jeopardize national security. The logs can be released and still keep our country safe. We can balance transparency with efficient governance.

Fourth, if the president wants to earn our trust then he has to come through on his promises. I like the Holder memo and the talk of openness, but so far his record of action is not so great — hiding photos of torture and now this. Even if the records aren’t legally subject to FOIA (but I think they are), the government can provide them anyway to show it is not hiding something.

This is a key decision for President Obama in demonstrating his commitment to transparency and government accountability. Were his promises false? Or does he have the fortitude to follow through? I hope for the latter.

Check out the latest issue of The News Media & The Law, by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (available online for free), which focuses on how the Privacy Act has been twisted beyond recognition. For example, the privacy law, enacted in 1975, was originally intended to keep government from invading citizen privacy, yet it’s been morphed into protecting government privacy!

You’ll find other good articles in this issue, including discussion of FOIA under Obama with the Holder memo, and an article on HIPAA. Another article points out how legislatures are closing concealed weapons permits in response to news organizations posting data online (see column on that topic in last month’s Quill).

It’s important for FOI users to understand officials’ perspectives – it explains some of the reasons for denials and some of the animosity that can emerge in the request process. I was reading a year in review in open government laws in Washington state, produced by a law firm that represents cities in public access litigation, and it got me thinking about the need to understand “the other side.”

For example, loopholes in the law allow requesters to effectively harass agencies and, at least in Washington state, earn thousands of dollars in punitive fines by playing the system right. Officials tend to focus on how to make requests the least burdensome, especially during these times of budget cuts. That has led to several states proposing laws penalizing “frequent fliers” and requesters who don’t pick up their records. These bad apples  – who put in requests only to harass – make it more difficult for legitimate requests.

Of course, the slippery slope here is who gets to decide what is legitimate. That’s where it gets tricky, and where FOI advocates tend to differ with agency advocates. Government shouldn’t be deciding what is a legitimate reason for a request and what is not (yet, despite the law prohibiting such content-based decision-making, it still happens, doesn’t it?). But if we all can better understand the issues on both sides I think we’re better off in figuring out reasonable solutions.

You can get an idea for how agencies view FOI issues by reading their FOI guides produced by municipal organizations in your state (most states have an association for its cities). Also consider going to a training session for municipal clerks, if they’ll let you attend. Or just go to coffee with some clerks and records officers and just listen to what they have to say. This is an effective way of access negotiation, where you acknowledge their concerns (without caving). That simple acknowledgment can make a world of difference, making you more effective in working with agencies and getting the records that you need when you need them.

Kudos to The Associated Press and the Knight Foundation for efforts that will foster freedom of information through investigative journalism:

• In a New York Times article today, the AP announced that it will distribute to its 1,500 U.S. newspaper members investigative reports produced by the Center for Public Integrity, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and ProPublica. This six-month experiment will provide great copy for newspapers and a powerful venue for investigative work. With that kind of coverage the great work these groups do will have more power and more weight to change the world. I hope the experiment works, and I hope they continue it permanently. Some of the best FOI-based reporting is being done by these organizations (particularly ProPublica – check it out!).
• In another news item reported today, the Knight Foundation announced it will spend $15 million to bolster innovative ways of sustaining investigative reporting. The grants include $1.32 million for the Center for Investigative Reporting to launch a multimedia investigative reporting project in California, $565,000 for the Sunlight Foundation to develop Web tools for the public to access campaign contribution and vote information, and $1.01 million for ProPublica to develop a way for it to survive. Other money will fund efforts by Boston University, Center for Public Integrity and Investigative Reporters and Editors. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, in my opinion, is probably the savior of journalism (as the primary funder for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and Society of Professional Journalists newsroom training). Express your support for putting their money where our mouths are!

Thanks to all of these organizations for trying to find ways for keeping investigative journalism alive. This is crucial. This year I’ve judged a few FOI-award contests and it’s great that citizen journalists are entering the competitions, but their work pales to the kind of document gathering done by trained journalists. As a journalist, I took our skills for granted and thought they really weren’t that special – that anyone could do it. But now as a journalism professor, civilian and contest judge, I’ve come to realize that few people can do what we do. We are trained to do it, we have a passion to do it, we earn (earned?) a paycheck to do it, and we do it right. Be proud, and keep FOI-based journalism alive!

This past weekend I was fortunate to attend the National Freedom of Information Coalition annual conference in Minneapolis. For the first time, much of the conference was recorded by video and provided online. Here are the highlights:

* Detroit Free Press Editor and Publisher Paul Anger talked about their award-winning coverage of the former Detroit mayor’s shenanigans, thanks to their aggressive pursuit of government text messages.

* Coalitions for FOI are strong nationwide – now nearly every state has one. The NFOIC is focusing its efforts on helping coalitions sustain themselves once they get started. Check your state’s coalition at the NFOIC member list. These are great resources (if you are being stonewalled by an agency over a record, contact your state coalition and maybe they’ll raise a stink or request the same record to get things moving).

* Several journalists talked about the difficulty in getting government agencies to provide records that show problems in infrastructure, such as dams and bridges. Agencies say they are keeping the records secret to protect us from terrorists but it appears they are instead trying to cover up the fact our infrastructure is failing because we aren’t putting money into maintenance and repairs – putting us all in further danger.

* A panel discussed groups who are trying to make government spending more transparent. You can’t follow the money if you can’t see it!

* Some cool new technologies are being used to spread FOI. For example, check out Alltop.com to see FOI blogs combined into one place.

Kudos to NFOIC Executive Director Charles Davis (a former SPJ FOI Committee chair) and his staff for putting on an excellent conference and continuing to improve FOI nationwide.

Finally, we now have someone who might be able to help access requesters deal with federal agencies.

The National Archives appointed longtime FOIA attorney Miriam Nisbet to be the nation’s first official federal FOIA ombudsman. Nisbet has worked as an attorney for access issues for the American Library Association, the National Archives, Department of Justice and UNESCO (see press release by the National Archives). Nisbet is a longtime member of the American Society of Access Professionals and is generally viewed as supportive of citizen access to government records in the U.S. and internationally. This is a good hire.

The new ombudsman position, created through the Open Government Act of 2007, is intended to serve as an intermediary between requesters and agencies. Now she’ll have to start hiring her staff and get rolling. This is a great move forward. While ombudsman positions have helped in some states, people seeking federal records have had little help when agencies stonewall. We look forward to seeing this new office help FOIA work a little better.

Now there’s specific legislation that would hide photos showing how we have abused prisoners. U.S. Sens. Graham and Lieberman have attached a secrecy bill (S.982) to legislation regarding FDA tobacco regulation (always nice how they sneak bills through attached to unrelated legislation). The bill would hide any photos taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, showing treatment of detainees that the government thinks are so horrific they would endanger U.S. citizens. In other words, we have committed acts so horrendous that if the world saw them they might not think kindly of us - and it would inflame people to hurt us more.

This is ludicrous. News reports indicate that terrorists already have seen so much death and destruction at our hands that a few photos of battered detainees isn’t going to fan the flames much more - it’s already an inferno. And will some nations think less of us? Maybe. But I believe that if we are open about our past transgressions then world opinion will be in our favor. Already we have garnered good will by setting a new course in international policies, and being open and honest about what we do (and have done) will foster trust and respect. To hide these photos is to foster more mistrust and ill will – to further endanger American lives. I think the intentions of Graham and Lieberman are good, but I think they are based on fear and not on principled reasoning.

From a practical perspective, this legislation is bad news because Congress already has enough legislation regarding access to government records (FOIA, FERPA, HIPAA, DPPA, etc.). We have legislation covering this issue already. We don’t need a new law covering each individual type of record produced by the government. That’s silly and a waste of time. It appears this is simply politics and grandstanding.

Let your U.S. senator know that this kind of legislation should not be passed. Let’s be open and honest with the world, and show them what we stand for as a nation. Fight for truth, justice and the American way!

Today North Korea sentenced two U.S. journalists to 12 years of hard labor for simply doing their jobs.  Euna Lee and Laura Ling were arrested March 17 near the China-North Korea border while reporting about the trafficking of North Korean women. According to news accounts (see NPR story and coverage at Committee to Protect Journalists), the convictions for allegedly illegally entering the country are really intended to serve as a bargaining chip as North Korea and the U.S. wrangle over atomic weapons testing. Journalists are being used as pawns. Some observers say diplomatic discussions will result in their release.

North Korea’s actions are outrageous and this will win the country little favor internationally. While we have our own government bullies who jail journalists willy-nilly (e.g., Maricopa County (Phoenix) sheriff Joe Arpaio – see previous entries at FOI FYI), this shows the true colors of repressive regimes. If North Korea wants to be treated with respect then it needs to act in a way that is deserving of respect. Release the journalists.

Some interesting efforts are afoot to brainstorm ideas for increasing transparency in the federal government. The National Academy of Public Administration is hosting a Web site where you can post your ideas on increasing government transparency (http://opengov.ideascale.com/). They are at the discussion stages now so you can start to see the main ideas emerging.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks aren’t taking it seriously and are posting a flurry of political statements that have little to do with FOI issues. But it shows that the marketplace of ideas is alive and well!