The Georgia ruling, Cardinale v. the City of Atlanta was the result of a lawsuit filed by Matthew Cardinale, a local first Amendment activist, against the City of Atlanta over failure by city council members to record non-roll-call votes at a February 2010 retreat. The decision reverses a Court of Appeals ruling that existing open meetings rules which do not require meeting minutes to reflect non-roll call votes.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein said, “While the act provides for public access to agency meetings, it also fosters openness by, among other things, requiring agencies to generate meeting minutes that are open to public inspection so that members of the public unable to attend a meeting nonetheless may learn what occurred. …To adopt a contrary holding that agencies possess discretion to decline to record the names of those voting against a proposal or abstaining in the case of a non-roll-call vote would potentially deny non-attending members of the public access to information available to those who attended a meeting.”

In New Mexico, the Senate has approved an amendment to the state’s “Sunshine Portal,” that will require the state to post the names and salaries of a state contractor’s employees. The bill is somewhat controversial, as opponents of the measure feel that it is unfair to require privately contracted employees to have their salaries disclosed on a public website, however the measure is largely supported by transparency advocates.

The bill is the latest move by state lawmakers to increase the transparency of state government. As CivSource reported recently, the state also asked for input on the state budget from citizens in an effort to increase civic engagement and create more awareness about state budget priorities.

The bills will allow anyone to make an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request. Previously OPRA request were limited to state residents only. The bill also allows for requests to be made through means other than the existing OPRA form, provided that the request contains the required information and indicates that it is an official OPRA request. Finally, the bills expand OPRA responsibilities to auxiliary governmental organizations like the League of Municipalities. The state would also be allowed to email records, cutting the administrative costs of responding to requests.

Weinberg wants to bring OPRA into the digital age in order to make the state more responsive to modern modes of information transfer.

“In this day and age, if I submit an OPRA request on a cocktail napkin, so long as it contains the necessary information, that should be enough,” Weinberg said in a local press account. “The guarantee of transparency under OPRA shouldn’t stop at our borders, nor should it be dependent on pro forma mechanics.”

New Jersey officials have been sending mixed signals on transparency over the last few years. Governor Chris Christie ran on promises of increased state transparency but has done little to support that. As CivSource reported previously, the state comptroller released a report noting that less than 10% of state governmental entities were transparent. At the end of 2011, state lawmakers went further and pulled law enforcement payroll information off the Attorney General’s website.

Maryland’s business development office has come under criticism recently for its lack of transparency. In response to that, they have released Maryland Finance Tracker which will let business owners see what financial incentives are available to them when they add new jobs or open new facilities.

There is also an interactive map – MDbizMap which shows visitors market data for their area of the state including employers, schools, local tax credits, and other incentives. Additional resources are expected to come online over the next several months.

The tools follow the release of the state’s first sustainable growth plan and several other interactive online tools designed to help residents and increase transparency. Governor O’Malley has made these types of initiatives central to his administration in effort to upgrade state government’s overall service delivery.

The bill is sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin who has a background in citizen activism through The League of Women Voters. She is sponsoring the bill out of frustration with the state’s lack of transparency in it’s public meetings.

Without the materials provided to public officials, Paulin said in a piece in WNED news. “It was very difficult to be an effective participant and I thought that was very unfair.”

The new law applies to all records, proposed resolutions, rules, policies and amendments discussed in public session. The bill pushes for agendas to be published in advanced but allows for them to be published as the meeting starts.

Paulin is a stonch transparency advocate and hopes that the bill will transform sunshine laws in New York.

Under current rules, elected officials are required to disclose their finances and some interactions with lobbyists. However, those records are only available by submitting a request. Individuals who submit a request must either purchase a copy of the records and have them sent or travel to the Secretary of State’s office and view them in the office. A bill proposed by Representative Yee calls for an electronic database of this information.

The measure calls for an appropriation from the state’s general fund to create the database. The database would not only be searchable but would also allow officials, lobbyists and companies to file their statements online. The Secretary of State supports the measure calling it necessary for state transparency.

State officials recently came under scrutiny for how they handled influence over the Fiesta Bowl, a situation which led to calls for easier access to the dealings of elected officials and Yee’s bill. The Secretary of State’s office began posting financial disclosure information on its own website several months ago but there is no overarching system in place to handle how this information is posted and the Secretary’s website was never constructed with that intent originally.

The emails in question detailed how the Governor planned to handle an appointed committee that was tasked with drafting the state’s health insurance exchange plan. Health insurance exchanges are required for states under federal health care reform law. Any state that does not build its own exchange, will have a generic, federally administered exchange.

As CivSource reported earlier this year, Governor Haley decided to reject any future funding from the federal government for a health insurance exchange – calling health care reform a, “spending disaster.”

According to the Post and Courier: “the March emails, Haley and her top aides discussed the Health Planning Committee before the panel met for the first time. The committee’s eventual findings mirrored Haley’s email directive that “the whole point of this commission should be to figure out how to opt out and how to avoid a federal takeover, NOT create a state exchange.”

Now, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is pushing for a federal investigation into Haley’s response to the health insurance exchange requirement. Harkin wrote a letter to the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asking about the overall cost of the panel and whether or not the Governor used taxpayer funds for political purposes.

South Carolina accepted a $1 million federal grant to start work on their exchange but the emails uncovered by the Post and Courier put into question whether the Governor ever had any intention of objectively examining the exchange.

Governor Haley originally issued an Executive Order charging the committee to study, “whether or not the state should establish a health insurance exchange.” An order which now seems in direct conflict with the directive issued in her emails.

Any overtime accrued by state police officers will be omitted from the state transparency website and historic data is also being removed. According to Attorney General Paula Dow, this payroll information may expose police officers placed in sensitive situations.

Payroll data for local police departments will remain available to the public, but all state law enforcement officials will have their information removed. Annual evaluations and background checks on state troopers will also be blocked from the public.

Dow claims that the new rule only codifies existing state legal precedent for keeping such information private. A move that was apparently necessary after the data was erroneously included on the transparency website when it was created.

Dow and other state officials claim it is easy to tell where officers have been placed through overtime pay. If officers are placed in sensitive situations, they may be more vulnerable if this information is available to the public through the transparency website.

Grossman staked out several aggressive campaign positions to become treasurer. In addition to putting all of the state’s finances online, Grossman intends to move much of Massachusett’s public funds out of large financial institutions and into local community banks. Grossman also plans to look at reforms to the state pension that go further than those passed by the legislature last year.

He will announce the launch of Massachusetts Open Checkbook this morning. The legislature approved the website as part of the FY2011 budget and the treasurer has been working with the Comptroller’s office to ensure the completeness of all financial data.

According to guidance from the treasurers office, the website will detail vendor payments, including not only who was paid but who made the payment; all agency expenditures including state employee earnings and salaries. The only information withheld from the website will be payments of a sensitive nature such as payments to victims of domestic violence.

Beshear offered a four step plan to address how this information should be handled and called on legislators to make his recommendations law. “My decision to open these records will allow the review of that information to further the health and safety of our children, increase the accountability of the Cabinet and improve our operations and practices going forward,” Gov. Beshear said. “Transparency will be the rule.”

Rules governing this type of information vary widely from state to state. Each state has its own set of requirements in terms of how to handle sensitive data such as social security numbers, individuals who offer tips and the names of families and children involved in these cases. The Governor held an internal review of statutes from all 50 states and is using that information as part of his reform proposal. The Governor has also directed the legislature to call a range of hearings on the issue to learn more about how this information is handled throughout the state.

“The current Kentucky laws are broad and unclear, and the Cabinet has worked very hard to stay within the bounds of those rules,” Gov. Beshear said in a statement. “But the time has come for the legislature to clarify what information should be public and what information needs to remain confidential for the safety of the child.”

This is the third time Beshear has proposed rule changes in this area. The previous two attempts failed to make it out of legislative committee. The Governor wants to increase the overall accountability of CHFS through transparency. The Governor also ordered a comprehensive Cabinet level review of current procedures to identify any issues or gaps. Kentucky is one of only seven states to have accreditation from the Council on Accreditation, a national, independent, non-profit service focused on best practices for protective services.
 
“The death of any child is one too many, which is why it’s imperative state government do all it can to protect our vulnerable children,” said Gov. Beshear. “We have reviewed our laws alongside the laws of all other states regarding information released in these terrible situations.  Everyone’s ultimate goal is to protect children, and my directives today are part of a comprehensive plan to strengthen our system.” 

According to the Governor’s office, the website will include details of open record requests such as the date they were made and what documents were provided. The website is part of a larger move by the Governor to push for new enforcement authority with the state’s open records laws.

The Governor plans to use the next legislative session to push for this authority again after it was dismissed in the previous session. Overall, the Governor has a mixed record on transparency. Transparency was a central theme of Branstad’s campaign, including promises that he wouldn’t charge fees for information requests. However, in practice the Branstad administration has implemented fees for such requests if the information is released at all.

In his announcement of the website, the Governor noted that 90% of requests are fulfilled on time but that some requests do contain sensitive information and that should be accounted for.

“We want to make sure people get accurate, timely information,” the governor said during his weekly news conference.