• After footage of a tense city council meeting  in West Branch, Iowa  was posted on YouTube, City Administrator Matt Mucker suggested a rule that would have required the public to secure mayoral permission to record meetings. This measure would would have violated the state’s open meetings law. After this breach of the law was pointed out to Mucker, he argued that would “ rewrite the rule to exempt the media.” Gregory Norfleet, editor of the West Branch Times, noted the law was not written for the media’s benefit.  “It’s for everybody,” he said. Furthermore, Mark Tomb, director of membership for the Iowa League of Cities, warns, “It is important to remember that nearly anyone can bring an action against the city for violating the Iowa Open Meetings Law. Each member who participated in the violation may be assessed damages of not more than $500 or not less than $100. These penalties increase to no more than $2,500 or no less than $1,000 when the member knowingly participated in the violation. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.” For the whole story, check out Matthew E. Marquardt’s post on North Iowa Today.
• After a disgruntled employee took to Facebook to air his grievances, Jackson, Mississippi  was forced to come up with a policy regarding social media and public entities. The city itself is now developing a policy. In the meantime, the fire department has released their own policy: “The Department’s memo encourages employees not to: publicly discuss issues that might be detrimental to the Department or that might conflict with the duties and ethics of a firefighter; to air personal grievances; and clarify that their opinions are their own and not those of the Department.”  According to Jennifer Peet of Local Open Government Blog,“ For public entities, the tool is useful for broadcasting to a growing Internet audience, but allowing feedback and conversation can be a risk. Like the Jackson Fire Department, every government entity will need to have a conversation about the inherent conflict between an individuals free speech rights and the government’s legitimate right to protect the government service.”

• While summarizing the changes Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst hopes to implement with the Senate Select Committee on Open Government, Curt Olsen reminds, “Initiatives for ‘open government’ either improve access or hinder it.” Olsen maintains that each change should be watched carefully, as, “ State lawmakers can pass laws that enhance openness and transparency or they can pass laws that cause mischief and erect a new hurdle for taxpayers to have access to government.” The proposed changes include: “The use of new technologies and future technological advances as relates to the creation of public information” and “Study ways to define and address frivolous and/or overly-burdensome open records requests. “State lawmakers can pass laws that enhance openness and transparency or they can pass laws that cause mischief and erect a new hurdle for taxpayers to have access to government.” For the entire list and Olsen’s opinion, check out his post on Texas Budget Source.
• In her assessment of the state of Minnesota transparency, Mary Tracey maintains, “What matters to most citizens is the right to access to information by and about state, regional and local government information – state agencies, county boards, advisory committees and regulators, every entity from the Governor’s office to the local school board. In her post on Poking Around With Mary, she summarizes the open government portals available to Minnesotans: The twin pillars of access in Minnesota are the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law.  Essential guides to each include these:  Open Meeting Law,Government Data Practices Act.  The Legislative Reference Libraryalso offers a comprehensive list of guides and information about parallel laws and regulations in other states.” She urges citizens who are concerned with government transparency to “be aware of the agencies’ responsibilities to assure compliance with the spirit and the letter of the law.”

In our continued effort to highlight the anniversary of January 2010′s Citizens United decision, all of this month’s weekly roundups will  take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. Last week, we took a look at bloggers from the primary states. This week, we’ll be rounding up blogs from the East coast states, where many campaign donations derive.

• Vermont State Senator Bernie Sanders has just proposed the “Saving American Democracy Amendment” aimed at overturning the Citizens United decision. In a statement, Sanders maintained, “There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment.” He called the court’s ruling “a complete undermining of democracy.” Sanders launched an online petition to garner support for the Amendment. Sanders is bringing the proposal before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by  Senator Patrick Leahy. A Leahy spokesman said that while Leahy supports attempts to undo the damage of the Citizens United, he remains skeptical that the Senate will be able to gather the two-thirds super majority necessary to pass Sanders’ proposal. The issue appears to have gained local traction in Vermont; Ben & Jerry’s ice cream moguls Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield sponsored a well attended public forum to lend to gather public support for Sanders’ amendment. For more on this story, check out  Shay Totten’s post on Seven Days. 

• Americans for Prosperity-Nebraska, a free-market advocacy group, has filed a complaint with the state attorney general against the Lincoln-Lancaster County Public Building Commission, alleging the body violated the state’s open meetings laws. The complaint alleges that commission did not provide adeuate notice of an emergency meeting to draw up plans to buy a bulding near city hall. The only notice the commission provided was one hasty flier on bulletin board inside the City-County Building and a notice on a website the morning of the meeting. Don Killeen, building administrator for the Public Building Commision, maintained that the city’s attorney claimed the flier met the state law’s requirements for public notice of an emergency meeting. Normally, the Public Building Commission’s regular meetings are advertised in the newspaper. However, the director of the Nebraska chapter of Americans for Prosperity, Brad Stevens, said in a press release, “Hanging a flier inside the City/County building announcing this irregular meeting of the PBC is an insult to taxpayers.” For more information, read Deena Winter’s post on The Franklin Center for Government  & Public Integrity. 

• Hudson County’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics has already taken some heat for holding part of its executive  meeting behind closed doors. Associated Press reporter Michael Gormley asked for an explanation as to why the board was headed into private session, citing New York state’s Open Meetings Law. The outgoing executive director, Barry Ginsberg, explained that JCOPE—like former state ethics panels—is exempt from the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information law. Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore, the chairwoman of JCOPE, maintains that while the board will try to hold public, but sensitive matters—such as personnel decisions and investigations—would need to be done in private. For the whole story, check out James M. Odato’s post on Times Union.
• New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow has created new rules to keep records of any State Police overtime pay confidential, blocking their access to the public. A Superior Court ruling from 2005 said that the records could be used to determine patrolmen’s assignments, like Homeland Security, undercover cases and the Executive Protection Unit. State Police overtime records had actually been shown on a state website from Governor Chris Christie’s administration designed to promote government transparency and to use for open public records requests for state employees salary numbers. The website, called Christie’s “Transparency Center,” will no longer post policemen’s salaries. Supporters of open government said taxpayers have the right to track public spending. Ron Miskoff of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government said, according to the Republic, “The public is paying the freight, and I don’t see how knowing someone’s overtime will put anyone in danger.” For Bob Holt’s take, read his post on New Jersey Newsroom. 
• The Sunshine Review has given Kansas a transparency score of “B.” The Kansas state website earned a “B” grade, accounting for half of Kansas’ overall grade. Sunshine Review also analyzed the websites of the five largest counties, which averaged a “B.” The five largest cities earned a “B+” and the ten largest school districts averaged a “C+.”Kansas’ scores across the board are just average compared to other states around the country. Anything less than an ‘A+’ is a disservice to Kansas taxpayers,” said Michael Barnhart, President of Sunshine Review. “Transparency should be a priority to every elected official and voter. Citizens in Kansas and around our nation deserve to have the information they need to hold their government accountable.” For the whole story, read Fred Gough’s post on Hutch Post.

Connect with other transparency bloggers in this Transparency Bloggers Google group   and see what others are doing in the transparency movement by joining this Citizens for Open Government Google Group.

via NY Enacts Complete Streets Law « LAW OF THE LAND.