Two freedom of information watchdogs, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpenTheGovernment.org, have released a joint report on compliance with the Freedom of Information Act by 15 major federal agencies, according to a report in the Federal Times. The study compares FOIA compliance data from FY 2008 and FY 2010, the first full fiscal year that President Obama has been in office.

From the introduction to the report:

“The results paint a very mixed picture on the FOIA front, with agencies generally processing more requests more quickly, but also increasing their reliance on the FOIA’s nine exemptions to withhold more information from the public.  Our analysis revealed an even more alarming truth:  the government’s FOIA data is flawed, making it impossible to assess key areas of progress and casting doubt on its overall reliability.”

Below are some highlights. Read the full report here: Measuring Transparency Under the FOIA: The Real Story Behind the Numbers.

• Exemptions claimed have risen by 33 percent.
• The Justice Department cited more frequent exemptions; the Department of Treasury had the most significant decline in exemptions.
• A majority of agencies had made progress in dealing with the backlog of FOIA requests, from 126,200 at the end of FY 2008 to 64,500 at the end of FY 2010.
• The overall number of requests increased by 11 percent, while compliance with requests has risen 8 percent.

Maine: Governor Paul LePage is proposing a measure to hide all working papers from public access, reports the Bangor Daily News.  The state legislature currently enjoys such protection of its working papers, or “anything written down that could contribute to proposed legislation.” The state’s right-to-know advisory committee has approved the proposal by a vote of 10 to five. Dissenting members of the committee advocate not only for the governor’s proposal to be rejected, but for the legislature to lose its current protections of working papers.

Judy Meyer, co-chairperson of the committee and managing editor of the Lewiston Sun Journal, said that ”this runs completely contrary to what the governor has said about transparency.” The governor’s deputy counsel, Michael Cianchette, argues that the proposed protection ”doesn’t cut against transparency because as soon as a bill is presented, all documents become public. This just protects the decision-making process.”

Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post reports that some top city officials in D.C. have used personal email accounts for work purposes. Speaking for Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi, who testified at a deposition last month, Gandhi’s chief of staff said, “There may have been an issue that we wanted to discuss, but did not necessarily want it to be FOIA-able to the press and, so, we would have perhaps had a conversation on personal email.” Gandhi explained at the deposition that he used his personal email account when emailing colleagues from home, citing difficulty accessing his work account. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray may also be under fire after the Post uncovered several emails he had sent to aides from his personal account.

California: In good FOIA news, a California state senator has introduced a bill that would require more transparency and ease of access to public files among government agencies. Rather than posting graphics and scans of documents, which are not keyword-friendly, Sen. Leland Yee’s bill would require public documents and data to be uploaded in user-friendly formats such as word-processing and spreadsheet files. On Saturday, a conference/”hack-a-thon” was hosted to allow software developers to create applications that can help the government open and streamline its operations. Read the story from the Central Valley Business Times.

– Abby Henkel

Abby Henkel is SPJ’s communications coordinator and a 2011 graduate of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs master’s program. Reach her at ahenkel@spj.org.

In a defamation case, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Oregon has ruled that blogger Crystal Cox does not qualify as a journalist and does not get protection under the state’s shield law (ORS 44.510).

Seattle Weekly reported on the ruling Dec. 6.

State shield laws generally protect journalists from revealing sources, among other press protections. The Oregon statute protects any “person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public” from being required to disclose any sources, unpublished information, papers, or work premises.

Cox, who represented herself, has been dealt a fine of $2.5 million for defamatory statements against Obsidian Finance Group. She claims the post in question was factual and invoked the Oregon shield law to protect her from revealing her source. However, one important exception to the shield law is in cases where defamation has been alleged and the defendant (Cox) uses the information as part of his or her defense.

In ruling that Cox is not covered by the shield law, the judge’s opinion cites the statute’s definition of a “medium of communication”: “published or broadcast in a newspaper, magazine, other printed periodical, or by radio,television, or motion picture.”

The opinion goes on to say:

…Although defendant is a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger” and defines herself as “media,” the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the [shield] law.

However, the shield law (read it in the State Code here) offers this definition of “medium of communication” (emphasis added):

“Medium of communication” has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.

The shield law in neighboring Washington would most likely have included Cox’s activities, according to that statute’s author, Bruce E. H. Johnson.

Cox plans to appeal, according to Seattle Weekly.

By Abby Henkel

Muslim group hits FOIA request setback: Politco reports that the group Muslim Advocates has filed a FOIA request seeking access to a 689-page FBI document that sets the rules agents are required to follow, including when tactics such as surveillance are allowed. The FBI had invited several civil rights and civil liberties groups to view and even take notes on certain chapters in the document in November 2008. Muslim Advocates was among these groups, and is now seeking to access the document again.

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that this limited showing by the FBI does not constitute putting the document in the public domain. However, the court is requiring the FBI to detail its reasons for withholding almost an entire chapter on undercover “undisclosed participation” in civic and religious groups.

Illinois rules for release of city council electronic messages: Illinois attorney general  has issued a legally binding ruling that electronic messages sent by city officials during council meetings are public information and must be released, according to the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette. In a letter to the deputy city attorney defending the city’s decision to deny the request, the newspaper wrote, “it is very possible and likely that city council members received communications that aid in the elected officials’ formulation of opinions and that consequently affect their votes.”

Abby Henkel is SPJ’s communications coordinator and a 2011 graduate of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs master’s program. Reach her at ahenkel@spj.org.