The Obama administration has started taking down some of the data posted online during the past month through the Open Government Directive.

Agencies sent the Office of Management and Budget nearly 300 data sets to be posted online Jan. 22 at data.gov. According to a story at nextgov.org, an astute staffer at OpenTheGovernment.org noticed in her Excel spreadsheet that the number of databases posted by agencies was dropping.

An official from OMB said some databases were removed for privacy or national security concerns, even though some of them are available elsewhere online.

While it’s perfectly fine to remove data that might have problems, it would be nice if OMB provided a note online explaining what is removed and for what reasons. Transparency is always a good thing, particularly on transparency Web sites!

The Delaware legislature is considering a bill that would require state and local agencies to respond to a public records request within 10 business days, according to a story on Delaware Online.

The story presents the 10-day deadline as a good thing. I’m not so sure. Granted, federal FOIA allows for 20 business days, and sometimes when no deadline is in the law agencies can draw out requests for a long time. However, more than half the states have shorter deadlines of seven or five days (see http://www.citizenaccess.org/ or www.rcfp.org/ogg).  Most of the other states require agencies to reply promptly, meaning that many will often see that as a few days, or within hours. For example, Arizona has no deadline but a few years ago when I sent requests to all police and school districts in the state, the average response time was six days. If we had a statutory 10-day deadline then I imagine the average would be closer to 10 days.

Already, an attorney general opinion in Delaware suggests 10 days is reasonable. This bill creates a law making Delaware one of the worst states for records response. The bill would be better if it had a five-day response deadline, or no deadline at all. Too bad if it passes.

Have you ever had a federal agency require you to go through a PIO to get an interview with an agency employee? Ever have a PIO insist on sitting in on the interview? If so, we would like to hear from you.

The Associaton of Health Care Journalists have been leading the charge in trying to get federal agencies, particularly the FDA, to stop the practice of having PIO’s dictate the parameters of journalists’ interviews, including listening in on conversations. The heavy-handed policies restrict the ability of journalists to freely talk to government employees (and more important, employees to freely talk to journalists). See the Dec. 2 letter to the FDA from AHCJ, signed by SPJ and 10 other organizations.

We need to move this beyond the FDA. All federal agencies should change these restrictive practices. But it is necessary to know what, exactly, is going on. If you have personal experience with these kinds of practices, please sling me an e-mail (cuillier@email.arizona.edu). We’ll compile anecdotes and go from there.

The courts are wrangling with whether names on petitions should be disclosed to the public.

This month the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear a case where the Shepherdstown Observer sued the county clerk for refusing to provide names of people who signed a petition on a zoning referendum. The clerk says the petitions were gathered bya private group so they aren’t public, even though the clerk has a copy (see story).

This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether officials can disclose the names of people who signed a petition to overturn a Washington state law that allows same-sex domestic partnerships. The U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled that the names should be released (see story).

Proponents of secrecy say that making the information public would make people less reluctant to sign petitions because it might be posted on the Internet and subject them to harasssment.

Proponents of openness say the documents should be public so they can be verified. Also, unlike voting, there is nothing anonymous about signing a petition – other signers can see your name and the gatherers see your name. And anyone who actively tries to get a measure on the ballot should bear some responsibility of having their identity public. It doesn’t matter the petition – against gay marriage or for gay marriage. Keep it public.

A Wisconsin bill would force its state athletic association to comply with open records and meeting laws, according to the Greenbay Press Gazette. This is a good bill for transparency.

These interscholastic associations are formed as nonprofits yet collect dues and fees from public schools. They are essentially funded through tax dollars to organize school athletics – so why are they allowed to operate in secrecy? Shouldn’t taxpayers know how their money is being spent? A lot of people think so.

Yet, around the country these quasi-public entities have been telling journalists they can’t photograph events, or they restrict how photos and videos are used. The Wisconsin athletic association even sued a newspaper for Webcasting a football game.

These groups are out of control. It’s time every state makes it clear that tax dollars and public events such as high school state championships will not be taken hostage by these secretive, controlling, money-grubbing sports fiefdoms.

A great day of panels is planned for Jan. 20 to discuss President Obama’s performance in FOI for his first year in office. You can watch it online if you can’t make it to Washington, D.C.

Coordinated by Daniel J. Metcalfe of the Collaboration on Government Secrecy, all the biggies in the FOI world will be speaking (Lucy Dalglish, Patrice McDermott, Steven Aftergood, Gary Bass, Meredith Fuchs, Thomas Susman, etc.), along with the new federal FOIA ombudsman and the White House Open Government Initiative director, Beth Simone Noveck. An incredible line-up. See the agenda, and the Webcast. Also, check out a good piece by Columbia Journalism Review noting the pros and cons of the Obama presidency in FOI.

My opinion? I think he deserves a C+, a little above average but nothing to write to grandma about.

The pros:

• Great talk with his signing statement at the beginning of his term advocating openness.
• Holder memo instructing agencies to presume that records are open (although some legal analysis questions the strength of the memo’s wording).
• The Open Government Directive in December instructing agencies to post useful databases online, although examples of some databases to be posted are lame (e.g., patent data, which already has been available online in an easily searchable format).
• The easing of the policy on photographing coffins of soldiers coming home (allows photography if the families consent).
• Got the federal ombudsman’s office rolling with some excellent staffers (although the first training session held in secret was an unfortunate beginning).

The cons:

• Basically has held the Bush line on issuing the state secrets privilege.
• Refused to provide some of the torture photos, even after the courts said he had to. He ultimately got Congress to pass a specific law keeping the photos secret.
• While voluntarily releasing some White House visitor logs (after CREW sued), Obama refuses to release logs prior to September (thus resulting in pending litigation by Judicial Watch).
• Despite promises of making the health-care bill discussions open and televised, negotiations have been held in secret.

Basically, he’s talked a good talk, but we’re waiting to see substantive change. It’s easy to post online the thousands of databases kept by the feds, like tomato yields and wind farm energy production, but it is more difficult to release information that might reveal embarassing or politically sensitive information. The judge of a true leader is one who can stand the heat and be transparent even when the information is politically meddlesome.

Texas officials who say their state Open Meetings Act is too strict are hoping to remove criminal penalties, including a $500 fine and up to six months in jail.

The last time an official went to jail for violating the law was in 1989, according to a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, but city officials say the strict law abridges their First Amendment rights to say what they want in secret.

This growing movement in Texas was bolstered by a Circuit Court ruling last year deciding that city council members have free speech protection even while conducting official duties. These officials are arguing they have a right to do public business secretly as a free speech right.

This is turning the First Amendment on its head. Texas journalists and citizens should fight this movement vigorously. It’s inconceivable that courts (and perhaps legislators) could buy into this crazy argument.

The No. 1 problem in freedom of information today is lack of enforcement. Recent research shows the need for stronger open records and meeting laws:

* A 2008 survey of people who used the Indiana public records office found that 91 percent said the biggest problem was lack of enforcement of the laws.

* A 2007 study by the National Freedom of Information Coalition and Better Government Association found a lack of penalties and compliance with open records laws (by the way, Texas got an “F” because of other weaker provisions in its law).

* Last fall at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference, Adrianna C. Rodriguez and Laurence B. Alexander presented an analysis of enforcement provisions nationwide. The paper outlined to me what appears a generally weak lay of the land for public records and meeting laws.

* The Associated Press in 2007 found that open meeting laws are sporadically enforced and penalties are mild.

We need stronger laws, not weaker ones!

Need help suing for public records? You now have two sources: The SPJ Legal Defense Fund and now the The National Freedom of Information Coalition’s “Knight FOIA Fund.”

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation provided $2 million to be spent over three years to fund lawsuits against government agencies who refuse to divulge public records subject to open records laws. The fund will cover up-front costs such as court costs, filing fees and initial consultation fees.

Charles Davis, executive director of NFOIC (and former SPJ FOI Committee chair), surveyed NFOIC coalition members last summer to find that 80 percent have seen a drop in litigation over accessing records as the news business struggles economically.

Kudos to Charles and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press getting this grant for what I call a “legal OFFENSE fund.” It’s been sorely needed. My hope is that NFOIC will be able to assist in key cases that will establish better case law and affect access nationally.

In addition to the new fund, journalists also have the well-established outlet for legal assistance through the Legal Defense Fund, which also helps in access cases. So if you are denied a record illegally, don’t take the law into your own hands. Take them to court.