Testimony in Support of Rhode Island Senate Bill 909: An Act Related to Public Records — Access to Public Records (video / text) (May 22, 2025)
“We’ve been told by legislative leaders that this isn’t really something of interest to other than reporters. They don’t hear it from your constituents,” NEFAC’s Mike Stantion told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. “But of course your constituents are concerned about housing and health care and education. They also care about honest, effective and open government.”
To R.I. State Representatives Re: H 5655 “An Act Relating to Criminal Offenses — Stalking” (May 16, 2025)
Polls show an increasing distrust of news organizations. Government officials and public figures continue to call into question the legitimacy of national media and such sentiment typically trickles down to those at the state and local level. In this climate one can foresee public figures using the changes in H 5655 to claim annoyance by the questioning of “illegitimate” journalists and using the law to prevent those journalists from engaging in First Amendment-protected activity. It is for all these reasons that the bill should be opposed.
Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen Re: Public Commentary Speech Restrictions (video) (May 6, 2025)
“It is a matter of constitutional law,” explained NEFAC President Gregory V. Sullivan during the hearing. “The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society or the government finds that idea or that speech offensive or disagreeable.”
Comments on Proposed Rules and Rules of Practice Governing Electronic Filing of Court Documents in Rhode Island (April 11, 2025)
We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on these proposed rules implementing the court’s updated electronic filing system. Having raised numerous concerns about document accessibility for the public back in 2014, at the time of the court’s initial implementation of an electronic filing system, we had high hopes when plans for a new system were announced. However, the new system, as envisioned by these proposed rules, is a major disappointment in a number of respects. We therefore hope that these comments will encourage the court to make revisions that will offer the public greater remote access to documents in the new electronic system.
Statement Re: Detention of Tufts Student Op/Ed Writer (March 28, 2025)
While the op-ed is critical of the Israel-Gaza war, many Americans across the political spectrum, regardless of where they were born, are similarly critical. The authors say nothing in the op-ed remotely supportive of Hamas or terrorism. Instead, it focuses on their university’s actions and calls upon its administration to engage with and listen to its students. This is precisely the type of speech that should be welcomed and protected at universities. The opinion pages of student newspapers have a long tradition of open dialogue and debate on the important issues of our time. Student voices matter, and students must have the room to lawfully express themselves free from government interference. Rounding up a student for an article that she published is a clear attempt to chill speech and interfere with Ozturk’s First Amendment protected speech.
To Warwick City Council Re: PCR 34-25 (March 24, 2025)
We are writing to urge the City Council to reject the request for approval on tonight’s agenda of PCR 34-25, “A Resolution Requesting The General Assembly To Review And Consider Adopting Amendments To The Public Records Laws As Presented In 2025-H 5457.” We firmly believe that too many barriers currently exist in the public’s ability to obtain access to records that shed light on the activities of the state and municipal agencies that serve them. We are therefore deeply troubled by efforts such as those contained in H-5457 that seek to make access to government records more, rather than less, difficult by weakening the standards contained in the Access to Public Records Act (APRA). As the resolution notes, the bill proposes to increase the maximum hourly costs beyond the first hour for document search and retrieval from $15 to $25 per hour, and to require a person to pay any outstanding balance owed for prior records requests before a new request will be processed.
To Boston City Council Re: Sunshine Week Resolution (March 18, 2025)
We write on behalf of transparency, democracy, civil rights, free press, and disability justice organizations to ask that you support docket #0696, a Resolution designating March 16-22, 2025, as “Sunshine Week” in the City of Boston and supporting hybrid meeting access under the Open Meeting Law. We are grateful to City Councilor Breadon and City Council President Louijeune for filing this important resolution and respectfully ask that you vote to approve it this Wednesday.
Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen Re: Public Commentary Speech Restrictions (video) (March 18, 2025)
New Hampshire journalist and NEFAC advisor Mark Hayward testified about the unconstitutional speech restrictions imposed by the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen. NEFAC and the ACLU of New Hampshire called on the City of Manchester last year to revise its rules on public comments which prohibit profanity and uncivil expression, among other types of speech.
To Maine Supreme Judicial Court Re: Proposed Amendments to Rules of Probate Procedure (Feb. 25, 2025)
Maine probate courts operate in the daylight. Except for certain narrow types of proceedings identified as confidential in the Probate Code, the Legislature has not directed that probate records or proceedings be closed to the public. While we appreciate the importance of protecting information in court records when justified by compelling interests and where confidentiality is narrowly tailored to serve those interests, the proposed rules would create a cloud of secrecy around many now-public probate court proceedings and records. They will diminish accountability, public trust, and unduly interfere with the public’s access court records. Some aspects of the rules also conflict with the First Amendment right to access court records.
To Massachusetts Trial Court Re: Search Warrant Documents (Feb. 25, 2025)
Retention practices can vary and the records themselves can be stored in locations or files that differ from court to court. In some cases, court clerks are claiming these documents are not public in the first place. When they do acknowledge that the records are public, court clerks are at times refusing to search for them without a docket number or the date the search warrant was returned. This information is not listed publicly on Mass Courts and there is no index of search warrants to use as reference at courthouses. As a result, members of the public and the newsrooms they rely on are often left without access to records that should be available to them. While public by law, these documents are too often not public in practice.
To Rep. Ron Mariano Re: Guaranteed Hybrid Meetings in Massachusetts (Feb. 19, 2025)
We oppose as inadequate any legislation, including the Municipal Empowerment Act, that seeks only to make the pandemic remote meeting rules permanent. These rules fall short, because they only allow — but do not require — remote and hybrid meeting formats for public bodies under the OML. Enshrining the current pandemic rules would allow bodies to shut people out of public meetings and severely weaken the OML.
Our current law allows agencies to fulfill requests under any timeline they determine reasonable. As a result, hundreds of requests to state agencies in 2023 took more than 30 days to be acknowledged, according to a FOAA Ombudsman report. Despite these delays, it’s also important to note that nearly half of the 2,936 requests to state agencies in 2023 were responded to within five days. For these reasons, we applaud the intent behind LD 152 and agree that a specific deadline should replace the current “reasonable” requirement. But we’re also concerned that any deadline set will become the de facto date of compliance. Thirty days is not the magic number. Providing a month to respond to requests will do little to change the slow pace at which many requests are already being fulfilled and it will likely prolong those requests that would otherwise be completed quickly.
To Rhode Island Judiciary Re: Online Court Records System (Jan. 30, 2025)
While we appreciate your assurances that our concerns will be thoroughly addressed, the new system is scheduled to be launched in about two months and there seems to be little if any public feedback solicited by your office. We understand that a public comment period will occur before any issuance of final policies. Still, there is the potential for technological shortcomings beyond court polices that could hinder the public’s access to court records while using the new platform.
To Milton (Vt.) Library Board of Trustees Re: Public Recording of Open Meetings (Nov. 14, 2024)
It is our understanding that your Board of Trustees may be discussing tonight whether or not members of the public should be prohibited from recording your meetings.1 If this is the case, we strongly encourage you to first consider the information in this letter as it pertains to the public’s right to record. We would also like to learn more about the concerns prompting this discussion and would welcome an opportunity to hear from your members and to provide additional guidance on the issue.
To Mass. Trial Court Re: Lack of Access to Public Kiosks in District Courthouses (Oct. 9, 2024)
Due to a combination of out-of-service kiosks and individuals using kiosks for an unreasonable amount of time, public access can frequently be denied. This is a major concern given that many court records, such as documents in criminal cases, cannot be thoroughly researched remotely but must instead be searched for through these kiosks. We believe this situation can be significantly improved with additional policies and guidance from your office.
To Chief Justice Suttell and General Chief Clerk Boisclair Re: Access to Online Court Records (Oct. 1, 2024)
According to a Sept. 13 article in the Providence Journal, the state judiciary plans to begin making court records accessible online to all members of the public next spring. The platform re:Search by Tyler Technologies reportedly will be used. While we applaud the court’s intentions and look forward to increased accessibility to court records, we are unaware of any public hearing or other opportunity to provide guidance on how this system could best be implemented. Please consider this a request to provide that opportunity. Members of the public and organizations like ours can share important guidance on how the new system could be successfully launched and done so in a way that maximizes transparency.
Comments Re: Proposed Regulations to Rhode Island Policy on Police Body Cameras (Sept. 30, 2024)
By providing the means for greater transparency and accountability in police work, the implementation of police body-worn cameras (BWC) serves as an important oversight tool for both law enforcement and the public. We therefore strongly support their use. However, BWCs can only accomplish this goal if the policies and regulations governing them enshrine that role. It is with this in mind that we offer the following comments
To Mass. Attorney General Andrea Campbell Re: Public Records and the WFMA (Sept. 4, 2024)
We are requesting that you amend your office’s regulations related to the Work Family Mobility Act (WFMA). The law and related regulations pose an impassable barrier for journalists seeking a variety of Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) records that were previously public and contain no immigration information — the primary focus of the WFMA. In collaboration with several investigative journalists in Massachusetts, we identified two record types that were once readily available, but are now withheld due to an interpretation of the WFMA we believe is outside the statute’s scope and intent: individual driving records and Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) Records.
To Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais Re: Board of Aldermen Public Commentary Restrictions (July 31, 2024)
This amendment — at least in part — violates Part I, Articles 22 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which protect the right of citizens to peaceably assemble to petition their elected representatives. These restrictions on speech also violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In 2022, the City of Nashua Board of Aldermen enacted a similarly unconstitutional ordinance regulating public speech at its meetings. In pertinent part, the ordinance held that “[c]rude, vulgar, profane, and/or obscene remarks are prohibited.” Following our letter to Nashua officials, they revised the ordinance to address many of our concerns. We urge you to do the same with Rule 3 and revise it in accordance with our guidance below.
To Maine Judicial Branch Officials Re: Online Access to Court Records (July 30, 2024)
Put simply, this new policy conflicts with the court’s own rules and long-standing stated policy objectives. It also appears to conflict with First Amendment and common law presumptions of access to public court records. With a few narrow exceptions, court rules require the same access to records online as is given at courthouses. 12 That was the promise made in 2018. While strides have been taken since then toward the finish line we’re eight years into the 10-year contract with Tyler Technologies with our feet now back in starting blocks.
To Mass. House Legislators Re: Hybrid Meeting Requirements (July 23, 2024)
We were grateful that the House adopted reforms last session to modernize the Open Meeting Law by requiring hybrid meeting access for members of the public. While these permanent reforms were ultimately deferred in favor of continuing the current temporary exceptions to the in-person meeting requirement until March 2025, guaranteeing hybrid access remains a critical way to ensure that all people — especially people with disabilities, people with caregiving responsibilities, and people with limited transportation — can follow and participate in government activity that directly impacts their lives.
To R.I. Supreme Court General Counsel Kathleen Kelly Re: Bill 24-H 7758 (May 21, 2024)
We realize that threats against judicial officers have significantly increased in recent years, justifiably leading to passage of a measure in the U.S. Congress to keep confidential the home addresses of judges. But that law did not go so far as to keep secret their municipality of residence, and we urge that it not be extended to state law either. While we acknowledge that, over our coalition’s objections, the General Assembly passed a similar measure for police officers a few years ago, that unwise action should not serve as a precedent to keep the municipal residences of more and more government officials and employees secret.
Memorandum Re: How the R.I. LEOBOR Bills Take Step Backward in Transparency (May 10, 2024)
Specifically, this section provides that a police chief “shall be prohibited from releasing any video evidence . . . about or concerning an incident or matter of public interest involving [a police officer]” if it relates to summary suspensions imposed for undefined “minor” violations of departmental rules. In other words, this section establishes an absolute ban on public access to body camera footage whenever a “minor” violation of department rules is involved, even if the footage would have previously been accessible under APRA.
To Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos Re: Rhode Island Long Term Coordinating Council Meetings (May 9, 2024)
As you know, the bill does two things to address a problem the Council has run into in obtaining a quorum for its meetings. First, it would reduce the number of members needed for a quorum. Second, it would allow members of the Council to attend meetings remotely. While we have no objections to the first change, we have serious concerns about the second and its impact on government transparency.
To Dartmouth College President Beilock Re: Arrests of Student Journalists During Protest (May 3, 2024)
We are deeply concerned about reports of two Dartmouth College student journalists being arrested while covering a protest on your campus Wednesday night.While we recognize the challenges presented by recent pro-Palestinian demonstrations occurring on college campuses throughout the country, we must also emphasize the need to respect the speech rights of students and to protect the ability of journalists to cover those demonstrations.
To N.H. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: OTP Recommendation on House Bill 1002 (April 9, 2024)
The ACLU-NH, NH Press Association, New England First Amendment Coalition, Union Leader Corporation, and N.H. Bulletin encourage members of this Committee to support HB1002. We believe that the compromise reflected in HB1002 effectively addresses the concerns raised by proponents concerning overbroad email requests while not undermining transparency and accountability.
To R.I. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: S.2256 (March 28, 2024)
We respectfully ask you to pass Senate Bill No. 2256, An Act Relating to Public Records. As we explained last year when this bill was first considered by your committee, this legislation is a much-needed common sense update to our public records law. The Access to Public Records Act has not been significantly reformed in more than a decade. During that time, there have been many changes in technology and in public sensibilities about transparency needs, particularly those within law enforcement. This bill updates APRA to reflect those changes by allowing, for example, public records requests to be filed electronically, certain police records to be released in a reasonable time, and fees to be waived when the information being requested is in the public interest.
To City of Worcester Re: Open Checkbook (March 13, 2024)
We write to raise serious concerns about your decision to end the City of Worcester’s Open Checkbook program and ask you to reverse course and restore the program as soon as practicable. Fiscal transparency is a hallmark of open government. Taxpayers, journalists, and civil society organizations must have access to information about government expenditures to ensure government is functioning appropriately, without corruption or mismanagement. While cybersecurity is a serious issue and should be prioritized by government at every level, there is nothing about Open Checkbook data that poses a unique cybersecurity threat. In fact, the records accessible in Open Checkbook are public under state law and other municipalities and the state government continue to use their own portals. Concerns about hacking related to this data, like any other public data online, can be addressed by implementing and adhering to basic cybersecurity practices and policies.
Opposition to Section 2-5 of the Massachusetts Municipal Empowerment Act (Feb. 27, 2024)
“The Municipal Empowerment Act falls short on ensuring access to public meetings. It will shut people out of the democratic process by only allowing — and not requiring — municipalities to provide hybrid participation options. Giving every government body complete discretion about how to provide public access to their meetings means people with disabilities or other reasons they can’t attend meetings will be completely shut out when city councils, select boards, or school committees decide to hold meetings exclusively in person.
To Mass. Gov. Healey Re: Hybrid Access to Public Meetings (Feb. 27, 2024)
“Respectfully, the Open Meeting Law provisions of the Municipal Empowerment Act are a step backward. These reforms will shut people out of the democratic process by only allowing — and not requiring — municipalities to provide hybrid or remote participation options.”
To N.H. Ombudsman Thomas Kehr Re: Rules 100, 200 and 300 (Jan. 22, 2024)
Our first concern relates to proposed rule Rko 203.06(b), as it does not contain the language contained in Rko 203.07, allowing for electronic filing, i.e. “unless an electronic system has been instituted pursuant to described in Rko 203.02(b) so as to allow for electronic submissions…” We believe that the electronic filing language should also be inserted as a sub-paragraph (4) to Rko 208.01(a).
To N.H. House Judiciary Committee Re: HB 1002 and HB 1696 (Jan. 16, 2024)
The proposed paragraph VIII to R.S.A. 91-A:4 is a monumental step in the wrong direction that, if enacted, will discourage and prevent the citizenry of New Hampshire from gaining access to public records. The purpose of R.S.A. 91-A is to provide New Hampshire citizens with “…both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people”. Passage of proposed bill 1002 would ensure the opposite result. It should be noted that the proposed language of sub-paragraph (e) is not opposed by NEFAC as it is consistent with the advice given by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of Salcetti v. City of Keene.
To N.H. House Judiciary Committee Re: Amendment to HB 1002 (Jan. 18, 2024)
The ACLU-NH, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the N.H. Press Association, the N.H. Union Leader, and the N.H. Bulletin have reviewed the January 18, 2024 amendment (2024-1097h) to HB1002, which would continue to allow labor, search, retrieval, and redaction costs to be imposed on requesters. We oppose this amendment for the same reasons that we oppose the original bill.
Support of HB307 as Amended By the N.H. Senate Judiciary Committee (Jan. 3, 2024)
HB307 would significantly improve government transparency by, in the form of mandatory fee shifting, creating incentives for government actors to be more transparent in response to requests made by the public under the Right-to-Know Law. This bill addresses the question of — if a request for public records was meritorious as found by a court — who should bear the burden of the expense of that litigation. The two choices are either the requestor or the public body. Currently under the law, the requester bears the expense of that successful litigation in most cases unless it can be shown, under a high standard, that the public body “knew or should have known that the conduct engaged in was in violation of this chapter.” This bill corrects the error of the current system by ensuring that the public body, not the requester, bears that expense. After all, a court decision requiring public disclosure benefits the entire public, not just the requesting party. Given this public benefit secured by the requester, the requester should not be punished by having to be made to pay the costs of this successful litigation.
To Mass. Trial Court Re: Electronic Access to Criminal Case Information (Dec. 21, 2023)
We want to bring to the court’s attention what we believe is a violation of its rules on accessing electronic records and ask that this violation be immediately remedied. According to the Uniform Rules on Public Access to Court Records Rule 5: Remote Access to Electronic Court Records, certain information about criminal cases must be accessible to the general public. . . . As of today, much of this information appears to be missing for members of the general public searching criminal cases using the state’s online court records portal. (This doesn’t seem to be case for attorneys and other non-attorneys granted elevated access to the system). While docket and calendar information for criminal cases in Superior Court appear to be available online for those without an attorney login, the same information is not provided for Boston Municipal Courts and District Courts where the majority of cases are heard.
To N.H. Dept. of Education Officials Re: ED 306 Educational Reforms Special Committee (Oct. 17, 2023)
Our organizations believe the 13-member committee formed by the National Center for Competency-Based Learning (NCCBL) under the direction of the Department of Education “to facilitate a revision of the ED 306 Minimum Standards Administrative Rules” is subject to New Hampshire’s right to know law, RSA 91-A.
To U.S. Attorney General Garland Re: Raid of Journalist’s Residence (Oct. 4, 2023)
The undersigned broadcasters, press freedom organizations, and civil liberties organizations write to express concern, and call for greater transparency from the Department of Justice, regarding the raid of journalist Tim Burke’s home, and seizure of equipment and work product, as part of an investigation into alleged computer crimes in the course of his newsgathering. There is significant public interest in Burke’s case. That interest is compounded by the nationwide outrage following the August police raid of the Marion County Record based on allegations of computer crimes by its reporters. Given these and other investigations, journalists around the country are left uncertain about whether they could be prosecuted for acts of routine journalism on the mistaken grounds that they violated state or federal computer crime laws.
To U.S. Supreme Court Re: Making Live Audio at the Supreme Court Permanent (Sept. 13, 2023)
A strong public interest exists in following the proceedings of the nation’s highest court as they occur in real time. Media outlets provide the public with links to Supreme Court audio livestreams so their audiences can hear directly from the justices, unfiltered and in real time, about the legal questions pending before the Court. Using live audio of oral arguments, a greater number of journalists across the country can timely and accurately quote advocates and justices directly instead of scribbling down notes in person and attempting to summarize the argument after-the-fact.
To N.H. Right to Know Ombudsman Re: Proposed Rules (Sept. 6, 2023)
We initially cite the Preamble of New Hampshire’s Right to Know Law at RSA 91-A:1. It reads as follows: “Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.” We believe that the rules promulgated by the Right to Know Ombudsman should be consistent with and supportive of these constitutional and statutory presumptions in favor of disclosure. Furthermore, we believe that the Ombudsman’s Office should exercise caution in setting out restrictive rules on access to documents.
To Vermont Judiciary Re: Online Access to Court Records (Aug. 23, 2023)
Our conversations with journalists and transparency advocates in Vermont have highlighted continued issues with the poorly designed system . . . These issues appear to be the result of policy choices, not technological barriers, and are therefore fixable — and we believe fixing them is in the best interest of both the judiciary and the public.
To Warwick City Council Re: Open Meeting Law Concerns (Aug. 1, 2023)
Like many Warwick residents, our organizations – the ACLU of Rhode Island and the New England First Amendment Coalition – have viewed a recording of the City Council’s July 17, 2023 meeting at which resident Robert Cote was barred from speaking and escorted out of the meeting during the “public comment” period because he sought to speak about a Providence Journal article involving Vice-President Travis. We are deeply troubled by the actions taken against Mr. Cote that evening as we believe they are not only contrary to the letter and spirit of the Council’s public comment policy, but they raise serious First Amendment concerns.
Testimony in Support Hybrid Access for Public Meetings in Massachusetts (July 26, 2023)
By requiring public bodies to provide hybrid access, Senate Bill 2024 and House Bill 3040 allow journalists across the state to attend multiple meetings remotely and provide much needed local coverage that would not otherwise exist. At the same time, the bills require public bodies to meet in person so journalists, not to mention other constituents, can still meet offline with officials and have conversations not easily had via Zoom.
To U.S. Senate Re: Amendment 218 to S. 2226 (July 20, 2023)
SA 218 would give members of Congress and their families a potent means of forcing private entities to scrub “covered information,” as defined, from the public domain, which could impair newsgathering by limiting the store of available information to reporters as well as creating uncertainty for journalists on whether they are directly covered. While the definition of covered information is narrower than the Judicial Security and Privacy Act on which SA 218 is based, it still includes data — including, for example, primary or secondary home addresses, home or personal phone numbers and emails, and historical geolocation information — that may be in the public interest and is of value to journalists.
To Members of the City of Barre Diversity and Equity Committee (June 21, 2023)
The New England First Amendment Coalition and the Vermont Press Association respectfully wish to express our shared concern about a recent incident where committee members asked an attendee of the committee’s public meeting to stop recording the meeting. Although we understand the committee’s desire to keep attendees and viewers local, we write to remind the Committee that any member of the public may validly record public meetings under Vermont law. The Committee may not prohibit members of the public from engaging in their right to record future public meetings.
To President of Nashua Board of Aldermen Re: Ordinance O-22-024 (May 5, 2023)
We write to express our concerns with a recently-enacted ordinance, O-22-024, which was adopted September 14, 2022 at the Board of Alderman meeting. This ordinance, which provides that at Board of Alderman meetings, “Crude, vulgar, profane and/or obscene remarks are prohibited,” violates Part I, Article 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution which protects the right of New Hampshire citizens to peaceably assemble to petition their elected representatives.
To Maine Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary Re: LD 1397 (April 10, 2023)
A police officer who is disciplined should not have any greater privilege of confidentiality than a school teacher, a county administrator, or any other public employee. . . . Through this bill, the Legislature requires much needed public access to the disciplinary records of all public employees. It prevents those records from being destroyed or deemed confidential based on collective bargaining agreements. The bill also requires agencies to provide enough written detail in disciplinary records for the public to understand the underlying behavior and ensures that all disciplinary records are retained for a reasonable period of time to be determined by the State Archivist, not individual agencies that might otherwise favor secrecy.
To R.I. House Committee on State Government and Elections Re: House Bill. No. 5454 (April 5, 2023)
To R.I. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: Bill No. 420 (April 4, 2023)
This legislation is a much-needed common sense update to our public records law, a statute that has not been significantly reformed in more than a decade. As our fellow Access/RI members will also explain in their own testimony, S.420/H.5454 will help strengthen the state’s Access to Public Records Act in many ways. These changes — most notably those pertaining to police records, official correspondence and 911 calls — will result in more transparency and accountability. The changes will also bring Rhode Island further in line with other states that already offer much of what S.420/H.5454 provides. While we fully support the testimony to be given by other Access/RI members and urge you to take into account their perspectives, our testimony focuses on the two provisions of S.420/H.5454 that address the confidentiality of 911 calls and the release of police-worn body camera footage.
To Supreme Court of Vermont Re: Proposed Revisions to Rule 43.1 (Feb. 13, 2023)
We hope our comments here inform and underscore the need for additional revisions addressing access for non-litigants. Changes to the current court rules should make clear that any hearing that would otherwise be in-person and open to the public shall also be accessible to all members of the public remotely. There should be no difference between the access courts provide the public in-person and what they provide online.
To Maine Chief Justice Stanfill Re: Fees to Inspect or Copy Electronically Filed Records (Jan. 20, 2023)
These fees are excessive on their face in relation to the actual incremental cost of providing public access to documents that are already available over the internet to litigants, and they impair the ability of journalists to report on matters of public concern. The fees violate Rule 14 of the Maine Rules of Electronic Court Systems (“RECS”), which requires that fees for public access be reasonable, and the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from turning a profit by imposing fees as a condition to the exercise of First Amendment rights.
To Mass. Governor-Elect Maura Healey Re: Public Records Law (Dec. 19, 2022)
As you know, Massachusetts stands nearly alone in retaining one significant obstacle to government transparency – a blanket exemption from the public records law that has been claimed by the governor’s office during the last several administrations. As you prepare to take office as governor, you have an historic opportunity to remedy this situation.
Statement on Rhode Island Police Body Camera Policy (Oct. 13, 2022)
While the policy deployed by the Department of Public Safety and the Attorney General’s office puts in place a structure for these cameras, it remains deficient in strong standards which would provide for timely release of footage relating to incidents that the public should have quick access to, including in situations where there has been serious use of force.
To Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis Re: Martha’s Vineyard Flights and Outstanding Records Requests (Sept. 26, 2022)
The undersigned open government and press freedom organizations write to urge the Executive Office of the Governor (“EOG”) to immediately fulfill public records requests related to the September 14, 2022, flights of about 50 Venezuelan migrants from San Antonio, Texas through Florida to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts (the “Martha’s Vineyard Flights”). Our understanding is those flights were organized by Florida’s executive branch and funded by taxpayer dollars. According to official statements from Governor DeSantis, the purpose was to send a message that “Florida is not a sanctuary state, and it’s better [for migrants] to be able to go to a sanctuary jurisdiction.” Dozens of records requests from news organizations have been made to the EOG related to the flights, but we are unaware of any significant records release. Responsive records should be released immediately.
To R.I. Dept. of Public Safety and Attorney General Re: Rules for Police Body Cameras (Aug. 17, 2022)
The comments regarding the proposed rules for Statewide Policy for the Use and Operation of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) (110-RICR-10-00-2) are submitted on behalf of ACCESS/RI the state’s freedom of information coalition. These comments are not meant to contradict in any way prior comments submitted by the Rhode Island ACLU and the New England First Amendment Coalition, both members of ACCESS/RI. We support all the suggestions made by the ACLU and NEFAC with respect to transparency of BWC footage.
To R.I. Attorney General and Dept. of Public Safety Re: Police Body Camera Policy (Aug. 16, 2022)
As we stated earlier this month and in our Sept. 24, 2021, letter to your offices, the use of body- worn cameras by law enforcement has significant government transparency and First Amendment implications. We’re glad to see that some of our previous suggestions were incorporated into the latest draft of rules and regulations. Still, there are several areas where additional improvement can be made to protect the public’s right to know and First Amendment freedoms.
To Mass. Legislators Re: $30 Million Bond Authorization (Aug. 12, 2022)
Our organizations were shocked and deeply dismayed that Governor Baker vetoed funding that the legislature authorized in the infrastructure bond bill (H.5065, An Act Financing the General Governmental Infrastructure of the Commonwealth) to improve municipal IT systems and strengthen remote access to public meetings. We respectfully request that you override this veto and restore this vital investment in our cities and towns and equitable civic engagement.
To Isle La Motte (Vt.) Select Board Re: Open Meeting and First Amendment Concerns (Aug. 3, 2022)
We recently became aware of an incident during an August 1 Select Board hearing about vandalism to LGBTQ pride flags. During the meeting, Select Board member Mary Catherine Graziano directed all members of the press to refrain from publishing the names of those who spoke at the hearing and indicated that the identity of those speakers would not be included in the meeting minutes.1 While we appreciate the sensitivity of the issues being discussed at the hearing, Graziano’s directive is nevertheless concerning as both an open meeting law and First Amendment matter.
To Mass. Legislators Re: $20M in General Bond Bill for Municipal IT Infrastructure (July 19, 2022)
We believe it’s time to adopt permanent reforms to enable members of the public to attend Open Meetings either in person or remotely, which means that our municipalities will need support to make such hybrid systems permanent. That’s why we’re so appreciative that the Senate recently established a new line item (1100-2517) that allocates $20M in the general bond bill to support municipal IT infrastructure for public meetings. As you begin to consolidate the House and Senate versions of An Act Financing the General Governmental Infrastructure of the Commonwealth, we respectfully ask that you include the Senate’s $20 million line item (1100-2517) in the final bill.
To Mass. Legislators Re: Permanent Reforms for Remote Access to Open Meetings (July 9, 2022)
We ask you to seize the moment and adopt — in the final version of An Act relative to extending certain state of emergency accommodations — permanent reforms to require municipal and executive branch agencies subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML) to conduct meetings in a way that allows the public to observe and participate either in person or via remote access. This is a critical step to make government more transparent, improve equitable access, and strengthen civic engagement.
To President Biden Re: Transparency Commitments for the Summit for Democracy (June 17, 2022)
We, a coalition of civil society organizations based in the United States, were asked to indicate our top three requests for the United States government to commit to implementing as part of the Summit for Democracy with respect to federal transparency. . . . Civil society will judge the success of the Democracy Summit and this administration’s efforts to strengthen our democracy based upon whether the United States government makes and implements significant commitments with respect to transparency in the United States.
To Uniform Law Commission Re: Redaction of Personal Information from Public Records (June 17, 2022)
This letter is on behalf of 26 government transparency organizations concerning the work of the Uniform Law Commission’s study committee on Redaction of Personal Information from Public Records. We understand the committee to be considering recommending that model legislation be drafted to provide for per se redaction from public records of information related to public employees, including judicial or law enforcement personnel, and a right for domestic violence victims and certain other groups to request redaction of personal information from public records. Our organizations have reviewed the study committee’s latest memorandum and have attended one of the committee’s recent meetings. We write to make the Uniform Law Commission and the study committee aware of a number of concerns that our organizations have with the committee’s proposal.
To Vermont Judiciary Re: Administrative Order 49 (June 3, 2022)
We’re concerned about the way some county courts in the state have been using Vermont Supreme Court Administrative Order 49 to limit press access to judicial proceedings. Order 49 allows courts in the state to make temporary changes to their rules and operations in response to COVID-19 safety concerns. The order, first issued in 2020, was recently extended to August 31. While we question the necessity of the order given that other branches of the government are no longer following similar safety protocols, our primary concern is how a small number of county court judges are using the order as justification to restrict the access of broadcast journalists to their court rooms.
To U.S. Supreme Court Re: Rule 34.7 (April 27, 2022)
Specifically, we respectfully propose three modifications to proposed Rule 34.7: first, the undersigned recommend adding language to proposed Rule 34.7 that states the strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records; second, we recommend clarifying the standard the Court will use in evaluating motions to seal; and third, we propose that Rule 34.7 require parties to state, in their sealing motion, the period of time they seek to have the material maintained under seal. These proposed changes draw directly from this Court’s precedents and rules adopted by the federal courts of appeals.
To Members of the Mass. Governor’s Council Re: Remote Access (March 17, 2022)
In light of Sunshine Week 2022, we are writing to you to request that you maintain the same level of public access to Governor’s Council meetings that the people of Massachusetts have depended on over the last two years. More transparent and accessible government means a stronger democracy for all. That’s why our organizations have teamed up to advocate for permanent virtual access to public government meetings in addition to in-person access. We were discouraged to learn that the Governor’s Council recently discontinued its online streaming of meetings. We hope you will reconsider this decision.
To N.H. House of Representatives Re: HB 1677 (Feb. 20, 2022)
While my clients believe that a vehicle for the resolution of claims alleging abuse at the Youth Development Center is an admirable goal, the provision calling for an amendment to RS.A. 91-A:5 creating a blanket exemption for records pertaining to the administration and settlement of these claims is a drastic and draconian step in the wrong direction. An expenditure of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) of taxpayer funds, which could increase in the event of a shortfall, requires full transparency and accountability. This bill, to which opposition has already been mounted, cannot be properly administered in secrecy.
Testimony Against N.H. SB 342 (Jan. 25, 2022)
[The bill] could be construed to expand the circumstances under which governing bodies can prevent disclosure of meeting minutes of nonpublic sessions — including with respect to “personnel discipline and investigations.” . . . We believe that this Committee should deem this bill inexpedient to legislate for two reasons. First, this area of law concerning how public “personnel discipline and investigation” information should be handled is currently in flux. . . . Second, though this may not be the intent, we are concerned that this bill would weaken the law — and the recent Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Police Standards and Training Council decision — in making information concerning “personnel discipline and investigations” less public, particularly insofar as this bill could be construed to eliminate Union Leader Corp.’s public interest balancing test in construing RSA 91-A:3’s transparency provisions, thereby mandating secrecy of this information in meeting minutes without examining the public’s interest.
Testimony in Support of R.I. 21-H 6602 (Jan. 25, 2022)
Our organizations strongly support H 6602, which clarifies that the internal affairs reports of law enforcement agencies are public records, notwithstanding personally identifiable information therein, regardless of how the investigation was initiated. We believe that the public interest is paramount with respect to how law enforcement investigate complaints, regardless of their origin. . . . Without transparency about internal affairs complaints the public will not know whether law enforcement agencies are able to police their own effectively. If a complaint is initiated internally it does not diminish the public’s interest in knowing the results. From the standpoint of accountability for alleged misconduct, how can the origin of a complaint matter?
Testimony Against LD 1529: Amending the Constitution of Maine to Create a Right to Privacy (Jan. 24, 2022)
We understand the need for personal privacy, particularly from government intrusion, but we have grave concerns that the language contained here is overly broad and will implicate First Amendment-protected activities and entitlements under the Freedom of Access Act. Logistically, it will also create havoc for businesses and organizations that collect and use personal information.
To Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (Dec. 22, 2021)
The undersigned members of the news media and advocates for press freedom write to express our profound concern with reports that the Select Committee has issued a subpoena for the telephone toll records of a photojournalist, Amy Harris. The events of January 6th were an attack on democracy, and it would be incongruous were a Congressional investigation into 1/6 to itself endanger the independence of the press. We respectfully urge the Select Committee to withdraw the subpoena.
To Gov. Daniel McKee Re: Open Meetings and Continued COVID-19 Concerns (Dec. 21, 2021)
As urgent as our request was in September for reinstatement of an OMA executive order, it has taken on heightened importance in light of what appears to be the even more contagious nature of the Omicron variant and the havoc it is beginning to wreak on our state’s healthcare and other systems. We therefore vigorously reiterate our call for a return to a hybrid/remote public meeting process via executive order.
To Mass. State Legislators Re: An Act to Modernize Participation in Public Meetings (Dec. 20, 2021)
Our organizations testified in strong support of An Act to Modernize Participation in Public Meetings. We now write to offer a few suggestions to strengthen it, and to ask that you advance this important legislation early in the new year.
To Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention Re: Press Briefings (Oct. 14, 2021)
Last week the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention decided to bar both the Maine People’s Alliance and the Maine Policy Institute from its press briefing. It justified the decision by calling representatives of the organizations “advocacy journalists.” While we are pleased that the CDC later reversed this decision, our coalition is still deeply concerned about the potential for similar decisions to be made again in the future. . . . Though the CDC said both MPA and MPI will be able to participate in this week’s COVID-19 briefing, there is no assurance that these organizations — or any organization officials unilaterally deem to be “advocacy journalists” — will continue to have access after this week.
To Mass. Senate and House Committees Re: ARPA Funding (Sept. 28, 2021)
We write to urge you to use a portion of American Rescue Plan Act money to make a transformational investment in our democracy in response to needs revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we request that you dedicate funds to create a grant program to improve the technological capacity of our cities and towns to conduct accessible public meetings — by enabling residents to join a meeting and contribute to the proceedings both in person and remotely.
To Office of R.I. Attorney General Re: Police Body-Worn Cameras (Sept. 24, 2021)
Attached are the suggestions of Access Rhode Island, a coalition of open government advocates that includes our organization. On matters of transparency, the comments provided therein reflect the positions of NEFAC. Outside the scope of government transparency, we have additional concerns about the use of body-worn cameras to deter or chill First Amendment-protected activity. Any policy that is created by your respective office should have sufficient safeguards in place for citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
To R.I. Gov. Daniel McKee Re: Remote Meetings for Government Bodies (Sept. 23, 2021)
In light of the current status of the pandemic, we therefore urge you to reinstate the executive order allowing for remote meetings and requiring livestreaming and remote public participation. Since these emergency executive orders last only thirty days, the decision whether to reissue them will occur on a regular basis and can take into account, as decisions regarding the previous orders did, their continued necessity based on the progress in countering the latest wave of the pandemic.
To U.S. Supreme Court Re: Continued Access to Live Audio Streaming of Oral Arguments (Sept. 8, 2021)
Providing live audio access to cases during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has convincingly demonstrated the public’s appetite to observe the operations of the Court. It has also shown that the Court can balance increased public access with the integrity of its proceedings. Equitable access to the Court as an institution is imperative for all Americans. . . . The demonstrated public interest in these audio broadcasts confirms that the time has come for regular, live access to the Court’s proceedings.
While we welcome the opportunity to expand public access to government through remote meeting technology, our coalition strongly opposes many of the changes proposed by 21-H 5891A. This legislation includes amendments to the Open Meeting Law that will ultimately make meetings less open and transparent. Please reject this bill and consider a sunset provision of one year for any similar legislation that amends our current law to address remote meetings. This is new territory for the state and a shorter sunset provision will allow us to more efficiently evaluate and improve any changes made to the Open Meeting Law.
To R.I. Rep. Marszalkowski and Sen. Euer Re: H 5891 and S 0804 (June 10, 2021)
We write to express our concerns about H 5891 and S 0804, and the proposed SubA’s to those bills, that would amend the state’s Open Meetings Act. As we testified at the hearings on these bills, our groups are committed to working toward a solution that maintains the advantages of online public meetings, while protecting the public interest. . . . Our position is that members of public bodies should return to participating in person. We recognize that there is a strong desire for some public bodies to allow members to participate remotely, but for purposes of accountability we believe public bodies, particularly elected bodies, should be meeting in person.
Despite two concerns regarding the waiver process that will be explained below, our coalition supports Senate Bill 2082 and House Bill 3152. As other states throughout the region reassess their respective open meeting laws relative to COVID-19, this legislation is a common-sense measure that will stand as a model to be followed. The legislation will make permanent one of the few silver linings of the ongoing pandemic: remote access to public meetings and the increased engagement between citizens and gov- ernment that results. By continuing to require in-person public access, the legislation also preserves the benefits of meeting with representatives face-to-face and being physically present during proceedings.
To Members of the N.H. Senate Re: HB 125 (May 27, 2021)
In our view, HB 125 is a dangerous and unjustified infringement upon the public’s right to know what the government is up to, and upon the right and responsibility of the media to report the news to the public. Distribution of post-arrest photos of suspects, or “mugshots,” is a practice that has been routine in New Hampshire for many years. This practice has been vital to the goal of keeping the public apprised of the activities of law enforcement and ensuring that the police remain accountable to the public.
To Chair Coyne and Members of the R.I. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: SB 671 (May 17, 2021)
We write to oppose Senate Bill 671 (heard by your committee last week) which would make secret police officer city and town residency information. At a time when citizens throughout the state — and country — are demanding more transparency and accountability within police departments, this legislation will needlessly keep citizens uninformed about the officers patrolling their streets.
To Maine Attorney General Frey Re: LD 130 (May 17, 2021)
The Maine Transportation Committee earlier this month voted to advance LD 130, legislation that would give the Secretary of State broad power to ban or recall vanity plates deemed, among other things, “vulgar.” While the state is not obligated to provide a vanity plate program, once it opens a forum to citizen speech it should not discriminate against constitutionally-protected expression even if vulgar or otherwise offensive.
Testimony Before Vt. Senate Institutions Committee Re: Public Access to State House (May 6, 2021)
This is a matter of accountability. Only with in-person hearings can the public’s voice be fully heard. Despite the benefits of technology, remote access software allows public officials to more easily limit citizen speech and avoid contentious issues.
To U.S. Attorney General Garland Re: Policing and First Amendment Rights (April 29, 2021)
As members of the news media and organizations that protect the right to gather the news, we write in response to the announcement that the Department of Justice has launched investigations of the Minneapolis and Louisville Metro Police Departments. We urge you to make the treatment of the press an essential part of those and any future inquiries the Department may pursue.
To Maine Committee on the Judiciary Re: LD 293 (April 23, 2021)
LD 923 is a violation of the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It fails to consider the strict protections afforded by the First Amendment and undermines the editorial judgment of news publishers throughout the state. The legislation also concerns matters of newsroom ethics and discretion that an increasing number of publishers throughout the country — and here in Maine — are already addressing.
Testimony Re: New Hampshire House Bill 584 (Feb. 26, 2021)
House Bill 584 is “blatantly unconstitutional,” explained attorney and NEFAC Executive Committee member Gregory V. Sullivan. “It’s blackletter law in the United States.” The bill requires media outlets to publish follow-up reports on the outcomes of civil, criminal or ethical proceedings before a governmental body when asked to do so by members of the public. It also prohibits the continued publication of mugshot photos when those pictured are acquitted, enter a plea of no contest or receive other favorable outcomes in court.
To N.H. House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Re: HB 471 (Feb. 10, 2021)
The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police specifically expressed concern that an officer would be forced to argue for a hearing to be closed in public and would, therefore, have to publicly disclose the information in which confidentiality is sought. This concern is unfounded.
Testimony Re: New Hampshire House Bill 471 (Feb. 6, 2021)
The public’s interest in police misconduct is always at an extremely high level. An individual officer’s expectation of privacy regarding the performance of his or her official duties cannot reasonably be expected to outweigh the presumption of openness mandated by constitutional and statutory law. As Justice Schulman of the Superior Court wrote in the case of Union Leader Corporation, et al v. Town of Salem, “bad things happen in the dark when the ultimate watchdogs of accountability — i.e. the voters and taxpayers — are viewed as alien rather than integral to the process of policing the police.”
To N.H. Senate Judiciary Committee Re: Amendment to SB 39 (Jan. 25, 2021)
Like SB39, Attorney Broth’s amendment, if enacted, would be harmful to government accountability, as well as undermine our Right-to-Know Law’s presumption in favor of transparency. All public employees work for us, not themselves. In this historic moment of discussion on government and police transparency, we should be making government records more available, not less. Rather than consider this problematic amendment—which was not subjected to a public hearing — we believe that SB39 should be voted inexpedient to legislate by the Senate.
Testimony Re: New Hampshire Senate Bill 39 (Jan. 19, 2021)
Senate Bill 39 appears to be an attempt to reverse the recent decisions of the Supreme Courtby effectively reinstating the environment of secrecy that prevailed prior to that decision, but only as applied to police officers. Not only were these casescorrectly decided, buttheyreaffirmed the public policy in favor of open government enshrined in the Right-to-KnowLaw since its enactment in the 1960s.
To R.I. Gov. Gina Raimondo Re: Media Availability (Jan. 19, 2021)
Our organizations are concerned about your lack of availability to the press since Dec. 22 when you were named as a nominee for Commerce Secretary in President-Elect Joseph Biden’s Ad-ministration. On behalf of NEFAC and NENPA, we implore you to resume full press briefings and to allow direct questioning from the many local journalists serving our communities each day. We represent these journalists, their news organizations, and all other concerned citizens throughout the state who have the right to know how public officials are acting on their behalf. This right to know is especially important during the current public health crisis when the state is governed, in part, by executive order and Rhode Island residents look to you for leadership and reassurance. While your nomination to President-Elect Biden’s Cabinet is a great honor that carries with it certain responsibilities, these must not be prioritized over your duties as governor. Making yourself available for questioning by journalists — who serve as a proxy to the public — is one of those duties.
To U.S. Supreme Court Re: Live Audio Access (Sept. 16, 2020)
Telephonic access during COVID-19 has convincingly demonstrated the public’s appetite to observe the operations of the Court and has shown that the Court can balance increased access with the integrity of its proceedings. Accordingly, continued live audio for oral arguments and the addition of live audio for opinion announcements will each promote transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judicial system.
To N.H. Commission on Law Enforcement Accountability (Aug. 19, 2020)
Transparency and accountability of law enforcement is perhaps more important today then ever. One needs only to turn on the television or computer to learn that communities across this nation innately distrust their local, state and federal governments, and, in particular, the police forces tasked to protect and serve those communities. Such distrust is clearly born from the lack of accountability and transparency, perceived or actual, from law enforcement agencies.
To Conn. State Judiciary Committee (July 17, 2020)
With those in Connecticut now discussing how law enforcement can best be structured and overseen by the public, this is an opportune time to make meaningful changes to our police departments. By making the changes listed above, citizens can more easily build trust with and oversee their law enforcement officers. Police departments throughout the state will also be equipped to better protect the rights of the public and more effectively serve their communities.
To Vt. Sen. Government Operations Committee (June 18, 2020)
During the last several weeks, the issue of police brutality has risen in our national conscience and there now seems to be the political appetite to make necessary reforms to law enforcement policy. This is an opportunity for leaders such as yourselves to help make both local and state police departments as well as county sheriffs offices more accountable for their actions and to prevent instances of misconduct that have been plaguing communities throughout the nation.
To Denver Officials Re: Attacks and Arrests of Journalists (June 16, 2020)
Officers on the ground must understand that gathering news and recording police activities are not crimes, and that journalists who are complying with reasonable law enforcement directions when covering civil unrest are protected by the First Amendment. In incidents documented in Denver, the journalists were clearly identified as such and indisputably in compliance with the law.
Statement on Law Enforcement Transparency and Accountability (June 12, 2020)
Many of our nation’s cities have experienced unrest and violence in response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer with a long record of public complaints. “Business as usual” in the oversight of law enforcement is not a satisfactory response to urgent and well-founded concerns that police officers are able to avoid consequences for wrongdoing, abetted by a tight regime of official secrecy. Change must happen.
To New York City Officials Re: Attacks and Arrests of Journalists (June 6, 2020)
Law enforcement officers do not have legal immunity when they violate clearly established rights under the First Amendment. The right of the press to document police activity is foundational to our democracy and has long been recognized and protected by the courts. Beyond, however, the Constitution and the law, any targeting of reporters for doing their jobs—keeping the public informed during an extraordinary period of civil unrest—is beyond the pale in a free society.
To Minnesota State Officials Re: Attacks and Arrests of Journalists (June 2, 2020)
As members of the news media and organizations that protect the rights of journalists to gather and report news, the undersigned write to ask that you take immediate, concrete steps to end the series of police arrests and attacks on credentialed and clearly identifiable journalists in your city in recent days. Police have arrested, detained, and threatened journalists, and have physically assaulted them with rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, batons, and fists. In every case that we are aware of, there are strong indications that officers knew the journalist was a member of the press.
To R.I. Governor Gina Raimondo: Public Record Response Delays (May 28, 2020)
Two and a half months ago, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, you issued an executive order, 20-05, suspending certain provisions of the Access to Public Records Act. . . . [Y]ou have twice extended it (EO 20-25, EO 20-34). In light of the message of indifference that this action is communicating to public bodies about, and the toll it is taking on, the public’s right to know, we ask that you immediately rescind the extension of this provision contained in EO 20-34 or, at a minimum, formally commit to letting it expire on June 14th.
To Maine Governor Janet Mills: Release Town COVID-19 Case Data (April 27, 2020)
The growing consensus and best practice is to make information on the prevalence of COVID-19 available to the public by municipality or zip code, not just at the (less helpful and less informative) county level. Access to more granular information about the prevalence of COVID-19 would be in the public interest and would advance Maine’s public health mission. . . . Access to more information on numbers of COVID-19 cases by specific location would have direct public health benefits, by allowing the public to better prepare and take precautions. It would also serve to enhance public confidence in Maine’s response by replacing rumors and suspicion with solid data.
To New England Governors: News Organizations Provide Essential Services (March 24, 2020)
We are writing to ensure that news organizations will be categorized as “essential” if and when you deem it necessary to close nonessential businesses to help contain the coronavirus. In print, on the air and online, journalists play a crucial, constitutionally protected role in providing information to communities during a time of crisis. Misinformation about the coronavirus is pervasive, and journalists are well equipped to dispel rumors through relevant and accurate reporting. News organizations and all workers supporting them are a lifeline for citizens whose health and safety relies on timely information.
Statement Re: Transparency During Coronavirus Pandemic (March 20, 2020)
Government bodies should not opportunistically take advantage of the public’s inability to attend large gatherings to make critical decisions affecting the public’s interest if those decisions can reasonably be postponed. Just as citizens are being asked to defer nonessential travel and errands, so should government agencies defer noncritical policy-making decisions until full and meaningful public involvement can be guaranteed.
To U.S. Senate Re: Press Access During Impeachment Trial (Jan. 16, 2020)
Absent an articulable security rationale, Senate leaders, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the United States Capitol Police have an obligation to preserve and promote the public’s right to know. Reporters must have the ability to respond quickly to rapid developments and need reasonable access to lawmakers who wish to speak to the press. The reported restrictions on the use of electronic devices and on the ability of reporters to question lawmakers as they move about the Capitol, as well as the additional security screening, will hinder reporting without an obvious benefit for Senate security.
To N.H. House Judiciary Committee Re: Bill 1157 (Jan. 15, 2020)
NEFAC strongly opposes House Bill 1157. The legislation is unwise, undemocratic and unconstitutional. The bill is a violation of the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the New Hampshire and United States constitutions. It fails to consider the strict protections afforded by the First Amendment and undermines the editorial judgment of news publishers throughout the state. The bill is such an outlier that there appears to be no similar legislation proposed anywhere in the country during the last two years.
To U.S. Congress Re: Federal Agency Communication Policies (Nov. 6, 2019)
Over the last 25 years there has been a relatively rapid trend toward federal agencies and others prohibiting staff members from communicating to journalists without reporting to some authority, often public information officers. The restrictions have become, in great part, a cultural norm in the United States. They also have become an effective form of censorship by which powerful entities keep the American people ignorant about what impacts them.
To U.S. Senators Re: Private Prison Information Act (October 2019)
The Private Prison Information Act would strengthen accountability and oversight by requiring non-Federal prison, correctional, and detention facilities holding Federal prisoners or detainees under a contract with the Federal Government to make the same information available to the public as is required of Federal prisons and correctional facilities by FOIA.
To Chief Justice Roberts Re: Audio Recordings of Oral Arguments (Oct. 3, 2019)
There is a strong interest nationwide in closely following these proceedings as they occur, in as close to real-time as possible. The Court’s usual policy of releasing audio recordings of oral arguments at the end of the week on which they are heard will impede journalists’ ability to provide same-day coverage of the arguments to readers, viewers, and listeners who rely on the news media for information about these crucial issues of significant public interest.
To Attorney General Neronha Re: MOU with the Diocese of Providence (July 29, 2019)
Section V(H) troubles us because it declares in advance that tens of thousands of records provided to your agency, regardless of their nature, are pre-emptively exempt from disclosure under APRA as “criminal investigatory records.” This strikes us as inappropriate on a number of levels.
To Sen. Moore and Rep. Naughton Re: Police Body-Worn Cameras (July 18, 2019)
While our organizations are sympathetic to the privacy concerns that result from body camera use, we are convinced that House Bill 2120 is an, at best, misguided attempt to protect those interests. The Public Records Law already provides tools law enforcement can use to withhold sensitive information. Those tools include exemption (c) and (f) which protect individual privacy interests and law enforcement investigations, respectively. In addition, House Bill 2120 prevents the public from receiving any benefits from the release of footage because of its wholesale approach to the protection of privacy. The bill simply eschews the much-needed balance the current statute allows.
To Sen. Pacheco and Rep. Gregoire Re: Mass. Open Meeting Law Legislation (July 11, 2019)
While we understand the concerns that prompted Bills H.2740 and S.1899 and the challenges vexatious filings of Open Meeting Law complaints can impose on municipalities, we believe these bills lack the appropriate remedies. . . . In particular, we strongly encourage you to reconsider the limitations your bills would impose on the Attorney General’s current review process of Open Meeting Law complaints, as well as the five complaint cap and the “unduly burdensome” standard.
To Bridgeport (Conn.) Mayor and Chief of Police Re: Arrest of Reporter (May 10, 2019)
In a letter to Bridgeport Police Department Chief of Police Armando Perez and city mayor Joseph Ganim, NEFAC called O’Neill’s arrest inexcusable. “While responsible law enforcement is crucial to the well-being of our communities, so is journalism,” according to the May 10 letter. “There is simply no excuse for a journalist to be arrested for doing her job.”
To Maine Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary Re: LD 1575 and LD 1414 (May 1, 2019)
The Maine Freedom of Information Coalition expressed concern that bills intending to strengthen the Maine public record laws will instead weaken them. The MFOIC is a group of media organizations and open government advocates — including the New England First Amendment Coalition — who work together to strengthen Maine freedom of information laws.
To Vermont Supreme Court Re: Digital Access to Public Court Records (April 12, 2019)
The following comments are in response to the proposed rules on public access to electronic court records. Overall, we applaud the court’s effort to provide such access to its records. This type of accessibility is crucial to an informed citizenry and an accountable government. While we recognize the enormity of moving such a large body of records online, we have several major concerns with the rules as they are written.
To Maine Supreme Judicial Court Re: Digital Court Records Access Rules (March 27, 2019)
The MFOIC [and NEFAC] strongly endorse the Court’s general public-is-public approach toward access to court records, but is concerned that (A) access be timely, as soon as reasonably possible after records are filed with the court; (B) that certain categorical exemptions to access are overbroad and unnecessary in all cases; (C) that the draft rule references an incorrect standard for granting and lifting seals on court records and that the referenced standard, if not revised, will lead to more secrecy in court records than constitutional and common law standards allow; and (D) that any fee schedule the court may adopt not become an unreasonable barrier to public access.
To Conn. Judiciary Committee Re: Bill No. 970 (March 6, 2019)
Our coalition strongly opposes Bill No. 970, “An Act Concerning the Confidentiality of Evidence Seized in a Criminal Investigation.” This legislation is written too broadly and ambiguously. It’s scope isn’t clear and could, as a result, give unilateral authority to law enforcement to keep secret all records gathered in nearly every criminal case. Even when interpreted narrowly, this legislation is unnecessary given the state’s existing police records exemption to the Freedom of Information Act. There is simply no reason for this bill other than a strong preference by law enforcement and prosecutors not to be supervised by the public.
To U.S. Dept. of Interior Re: Proposed FOI Regulations (Jan. 28, 2019)
As detailed herein, the News Media Coalition is gravely concerned about the Proposed Rule—many provisions of which are flatly inconsistent or incompatible with the Act, and would harm journalists’ ability to gather and report information to the public about the actions of the Department and its personnel.
Comments Re: Media Registration and Use of Recording Devices in Vt. Courtrooms (Jan. 14, 2019)
In summary, we believe these changes are unnecessary as state courts already have adequate tools at their disposal to protect the privacy interests of witnesses and jurors. We are also un- comfortable with the court enforcing a registration process for journalists and defining who is and is not a member of the professional media — a definition that is drawn too narrowly and neglects the interests of academics, students and other researchers.
Statement on White House Revoking Credential of CNN Reporter (Nov. 8, 2018)
While the Trump Administration has previously excluded journalists from press briefings — an action that poses constitutional questions in its own right — officials have never revoked a press credential in retaliation for a reporter’s coverage or questioning. This type of punishment is a violation of the First Amendment and a shot across the bow at other reporters who may now reconsider their own questioning in fear of similar consequences. It also sets a dangerous precedent for reporters covering state and local government.
Statement on Limited Media Access at Brown University Event (Nov. 5, 2018)
The New England First Amendment Coalition calls on Brown University and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to find a way to remove the audio, video and photographic restrictions planned for the Nov. 7 event. While Brown is a private university, Senator Warren is a public official, and the interest in what a potential presidential candidate says the day after Election Day is obvious.
Statement on Removal of Student Press Article at Burlington High School (Sept. 13, 2018)
The Vermont Press Association and New England First Amendment Coalition condemns the Burlington School District and its High School administration for ignoring an important Vermont education law enacted to ensure First Amendment protections for journalism students and teacher/advisers.
To Special Legislative Commission Re: Mass. Public Records Law (Sept. 12, 2018)
No matter how strongly the public records statute may be written, it still only covers a small fraction of the documents produced by state government. It’s an embarrassment that Massachusetts — whose own constitution explicitly requires government accountability to the people — is the only state in the country where the public lacks a right to records in the Governor’s Office, the judiciary and the legislature. Accountability simply cannot exist where there is secrecy.
To U.S. Senate Judiciary Staff Re: Endorsement of the Private Prisons Information Act (July 2018)
The Private Prison Information Act (S.1728) would strengthen accountability and oversight by requiring non-Federal prison, correctional, and detention facilities holding Federal prisoners or detainees under a contract with the Federal Government to make the same information available to the public as is required of Federal prisons and correctional facilities by FOIA.
Reaffirming Our Commitment to Journalism After Shooting at Capital Gazette Newspaper (July 3, 2018)
The New England First Amendment Coalition mourns the loss of five staff members at the Capital Gazette community newspaper near Annapolis, Maryland, who were killed by a gunman last week in a senseless act of violence. We convey our utmost sympathies to the newspaper’s staff and to the families and friends of the victims. “Like countless other organizations and right-minded Americans, NEFAC unequivocally condemns all mass shootings,” wrote Justin Silverman, the coalition’s executive director, in a blog post today. “But as guardians of the First Amendment, we are especially saddened and concerned by this most recent tragedy because those targeted were journalists. In a very real sense, this hits home for us.”
To R.I. Gov. Raimondo Re: Request to Veto Revenge Porn Bills (May 31, 2018)
Two years ago, you courageously vetoed a “revenge porn” bill promoted by the Attorney General that our organizations had argued raised serious First Amendment concerns. The legislation criminalized a wide array of speech that involved neither revenge or porn. In response, last year and this year, you proposed alternative legislation that we believe addressed those constitutional concerns while providing strong protections to those who were the true victims of malicious conduct. However, in its place and on its way to your desk is a “compromise” bill, based on Massachusetts legislation, that suffers many of the same constitutional infirmities as the 2016 legislation you vetoed. Because it will chill freedom of speech, especially for the media, and will likely result in a court challenge leaving no protection for victims of this conduct, our organizations – representing both the public and the media – once again urge you to veto this legislation.
Legal Memo in Support of Request for Veto of 18-H 7452 and 18-S 2581
H.B. 7452 and S.B. 2581 would make it a crime to distribute a nude image of an identifiable person if the publisher created or obtained the image under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private; the image was distributed without the consent of the person in the image; and the publisher did so with knowledge or reckless disregard that the person in the image would suffer “harm.”
To Judge Burroughs Re: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (April 6, 2018)
The Coalition’s concern is not whether Harvard’s admission process violates federal civil rights law, but instead that judicial records shedding light on this dispute—which is of exceptional public importance and community interest—remain open to the public. The presumption in favor of access to judicial records sets a high bar before any part of a summary judgment filing may be sealed.
To R.I. House Committee on the Judiciary Re: House Bill 7452 (April 3, 2018)
While an “intent to harm” standard is not included in House Bill 7452, it is included in House Bill 7718, which is supported by Gov. Raimondo and more effectively addresses potential First Amendment conflicts. We strongly encourage your committee to consider the governor’s bill and to support the “intent to harm” standard it wisely includes.
To R.I. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Re: Senate Bill 2450 (March 27, 2018)
During the last two years, we have expressed our concern with legislative attempts to criminalize so-called revenge pornography that also infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Rhode Islanders. Most recently, we joined with the ACLU of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Press Association and the Media Coalition to emphasize the need for an “intent to harm” standard in any legislation considered by your committee. While an “intent to harm” standard is not included in Senate Bill 2450, it is included in Senate Bill 2581, which is supported by Gov. Raimondo and more effectively addresses potential First Amendment conflicts. We strongly encourage your committee to consider the governor’s bill and to support the “intent to harm” standard it wisely includes.
NEFAC Opposes Efforts By N.H. Prosecutors to Obtain Reporter’s Interview Notes (March 23, 2018)
While reporting for Foster’s Daily Democrat – a publication owned by Seacoast Media Group – journalist Brian Early met with Joshua Flynn, an inmate at the Strafford County House of Corrections who is awaiting trial on sexual assault charges. To help possibly strengthen their case against Flynn, state prosecutors filed a motion to compel on Jan. 29 seeking from Early any unpublished information collected during the interview.
To Vt. Sen. Jeanette White Re: House Bill 700 (March 20, 2018)
NEFAC is concerned with House Bill 700, “An Act Relating to the Open Meeting Law and Meeting Minutes.” This legislation is unnecessary and addresses a problem that can already be avoided by state agencies and municipalities. If passed, this bill will weaken the state’s open meeting law and make it more difficult for Vermont residents to obtain timely information about their government.
To U.S. Congress and White House: A Condemnation of Threats to Openness (March 11, 2018)
Those in the highest levels of government have moved far beyond previous efforts to evade transparency, engaging in an unprecedented, systemic endeavor to undermine the basic norms of disclosure, accountability and truthfulness. The Trump Administration has undermined the role of the press, and uses misinformation to thwart the public’s understanding of its actions. Furthermore, the oversight function of Congress has been weakened, if not trivialized, by partisanship. By devaluing openness and accountability, those in power today are diminishing the public trust in government and eroding the foundations of our democracy.
To R.I. Gov. Raimondo Re: The ‘Revenge Porn’ Bills (Jan. 18, 2018)
Our organizations are writing about the so-called revenge porn bills that were introduced last year and that we expect will be reintroduced this session. As you know, in 2017 the Attorney General reintroduced his version of the legislation that you had vetoed in 2016 (S-401), and you submitted your own bill, S-765, which sought to address the serious constitutional defects in the AG’s bill.
Comments Re: R.I. Dept. of Safety Regulations on APRA Proposal (Jan. 18, 2018)
This testimony is submitted on behalf of ACCESS/Rhode Island, a coalition of non-profit organizations and First Amendment advocates such as the New England First Amendment Coalition, all dedicated to ensuring government at all levels is accessible to the public.
To Maine Supreme Judicial Court Re: Task Force on Transparency and Privacy in Court Records (Dec. 15, 2017)
NEFAC is concerned with recommendations that, if adopted, would limit online public access to judicial documents. Providing online access to only attorneys and litigants, as is being recommended, undermines the ability of all Maine residents to learn about their government and to keep its judicial system accountable. As we wrote to the Judicial Branch Transparency and Privacy Task Force on Sept. 27, “the public does not benefit from a secret court system, operating in obscurity, with meaningful access limited only to persons deemed worthy of finding out what’s going on. In the long run, secrecy is corrosive to the justice system.”
Comments Re: Maine Judicial Branch Task Force on Transparency and Privacy in Court Records (Dec. 15, 2017)
As Maine moves toward an electronic case management system, its courts have a tremendous opportunity to enhance their relationship with the public by providing Internet access to judicial records. And, as a legal matter, providing electronic access equivalent to access available at the courthouse is the most authentic means of complying with the public’s established First Amendment and common law rights of access.
Comments on Proposed Revisions to the R.I. Dept. of Admin. Rules on Public Records (Nov. 16, 2017)
While particular provisions of the statute require a balancing of interests in determining the availability of certain information, there remains a presumption of openness. . . . That needs to be emphasized, and it is something that this section of the Rules fails to capture. It is “unwarranted” invasions of privacy that portions of APRA are designed to protect, not privacy in general.
To East Greenwich (R.I.) Town Council President Re: Open Meeting Law Violations (Nov. 14, 2017)
In Judge McGuirl’s decision, she cited as precedent two major Supreme Court of Rhode Island cases interpreting this provision in the OMA . . . Judge McGuirl’s decision admonished your Town Council for posting an agenda item that was more deficient than the notice in the precedential Tanner case. Tonight’s agenda item, we submit, is even less compliant with the statute.
To Boston City Officials Re: Access to Public Demonstrations on Common (Oct. 24, 2017)
A coalition of First Amendment advocates demanded increased press access to public demonstrations on the Boston Common and asked city officials to revise policies that excluded journalists from a controversial rally in August. With another rally scheduled on Nov. 18, the groups, including NEFAC, encouraged city officials to make “significant changes” to comply with the First Amendment while ensuring public safety.
To City of Biddeford Officials Re: Delivery of Unsolicited Printed or Written Materials (Oct. 16, 2017)
NEFAC is deeply troubled by a recently passed ordinance that limits the delivery of unsolicited printed or written materials. . . . This ordinance raises serious First Amendment concerns given its restrictions on the press and your constituents; the financial burden it places on newspapers and the City of Biddeford; and the impropriety of the intensive government involvement in private business operations this new ordinance demands.
To Maine Transparency Task Force Re: Online Access to Court Records (Sept. 27, 2017)
The public does not benefit from a secret court system, operating in obscurity, with meaningful access limited only to persons deemed worthy of finding out what’s going on. In the long run, secrecy is corrosive to the justice system. . . . Our position is that any already public record, available to anyone now at the clerk’s office in paper copy, should also be public in digital form after the court system moves to an online case management system.
To Chairman Dooley Re: Rules on Recording Devices in Vt. Courts (Sept. 18, 2017)
In summary, we believe the public has a right to audio and video record what occurs during open court proceedings. Citizens — media and non-media alike — should be allowed to record so long as that recording isn’t disruptive or outweighed by substantial interests. In addition, we believe such recording should be allowed without burdensome registration requirements and without the threat of equipment confiscation by the court.
To U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Re: Request for Data on Protesters (Aug. 24, 2017)
The undersigned organizations write to express concern over the Justice Department’s demand for information associated with a website used to organize protests on Inauguration Day. While the government, in the face of mounting public pressure, has significantly narrowed its initial demand for data on every individual who visited the site, we remain concerned that the government made its sweeping request in the first place — and that it continues to maintain that this request was legal and appropriate.
Carpenter v. United States (U.S. 2017)
This case concerns the constitutionality of the warrantless acquisition by law enforcement of historical cellular telephone data revealing a comprehensive picture of an individual’s location and movements. . . . Because the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures” plays a vital role in protecting First Amendment rights, the question presented is one of particular importance to journalists and news organizations. Absent meaningful Fourth Amendment protection for records like those at issue in this case, activities protected by the First Amendment — including newsgathering, speech, expression, and association — will be chilled.
To U.S. Congress Re: Private Prisons Information Act of 2017 (Aug. 3, 2017)
Private prison companies that receive federal funding provide the same service as government agencies, but, by asserting their status as private entities, claim that they are not subject to public records laws such as the FOIA. As a result, the public is largely in the dark with regard to the functioning of the many of this country’s private prisons, and the industry operates with a lack of oversight and accountability mechanisms. This dynamic hinders the ability of the government and public to ensure private prison companies are living up to their contractual obligations and not wasting taxpayer dollars.
To R.I. Gov. Gina Raimondo Re: House Bill 6323 (July 17, 2017)
This piece of legislation amends the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act (herein OMA) in two important ways. First, it excludes from the calculation of time required for advanced notice of meetings both weekends and holidays. Second, it requires municipal public bodies to post their minutes online, as is currently required of state public bodies. These are both significant improvements that advance the public interest and promote transparency in government.
To R.I. Gov. Gina Raimondo Re: Student Press House Bill 5550 (July 17, 2017)
House Bill 5550 invites the discussion of substantive public issues into the newsroom and into the school day, where students can practice the civic-engagement skills preparing them for a lifetime of participatory citizenship. We urge your support for this commonsense legislation that will establish Rhode Island as a leader in journalism education at a time when journalism is sorely in need of champions.
To R.I. Gov. Gina Raimondo Re: “Revenge Porn” Bills (June 30, 2017)
Later today, Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on a “revenge porn” bill. On the table are a bill proposed by the Attorney General identical to the one you vetoed last year, the constitutional alternative you submitted, or, we understand, a “compromise” bill based on one introduced by Governor Baker in Massachusetts. On behalf of the ACLU of Rhode lsland, the Rhode lsland Press Association, and the New England First Amendment Coalition, we are writing to urge you to stay the course and call for passage of your legislation.
To Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Re: Anti-SLAPP Statute (June 7, 2017)
The court announced a new standard for deciding whether an action should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute and did so without the benefit of briefing — either by parties or amici curiae — about the benefits, drawbacks and potential unintended consequences of the new standard. . . . The kinds of parties most likely to be burdened by the costs of the new standard are those most in need of protection. They include low-income tenants who report building code violations; columnists or bloggers who write about corporate malfeasance; consumers who report unscrupulous business practices; and digital activists organizing collective action on social media.
To Rhode Island Senate Committee on Judiciary Re: “Revenge Porn” Legislation (May 9, 2017)
If passed, S.0401 will have a chilling effect on Rhode Island news organizations and their reporting. While the privacy interests this bill seeks to address are legitimate and in need of protection, S.0401 lacks necessary First Amendment safeguards. The legislation places the burden on news publishers to prove their reporting is in the public interest, a burden that will undoubtedly lead to self-censorship. Senate Bill 0765, in contrast, removes that burden and more narrowly focuses on the intended targets of both bills — those publishing so-called “re-venge pornography” — and not those publishing the news.
To Maine State House Facilities Committee Re: Recordings of Legislative Hearings (April 25, 2017)
Keeping legislative committee meetings open for public review is critical for an informed citizenry to maintain trust in its government. Any attempt to limit access to testimony about matters of public concern is a dangerous precedent toward government secrecy, regardless of whether the deliberations and testimony were yesterday or five years ago. Audio recordings of committee proceedings are of essential current-day and historic value and we ask you to make the files readily available, in the public interest.
To Maine Committee on Judiciary Re: Advance Payment of Costs for Public Records Requests (April 24, 2017)
L.D. 1432 would allow a custodian to require advance payment for all costs of producing a record – no matter how small – before that record is provided. While this may seem like a practical way for agencies to recoup their costs and prevent non-payment of fees, there is already a sufficient safeguard for agency budgets: § 408-A (10). This provision of FOAA allows custodians to require advance payment for requests made by individuals who have previously failed to pay a fee or are requesting records that will cost more than $100 to produce. Under § 408-A (10), advance payment can be required even before any time is expended on the search and retrieval process.
Statement in Support of Freedom of the Press (March 2, 2017)
As organizations committed to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the press, we are alarmed by the efforts of the President and his administration to demonize and marginalize the media and to undermine their ability to inform the public about official actions and policies.
To N.H. Rep. Carol McGuire Re: “An Act Relative to the Use of Drones” (Jan. 25, 2017)
We believe the proposed bill poses a serious risk to innovative use of drones to gather and disseminate information and images on matters of public concern as well as the public’s right to receive news, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
To Maine Supreme Judicial Court Re: Maine Rule of Probate Procedure 92.12 (Jan. 25, 2017)
NEFAC is concerned about the proposed amendments to Maine Rule of Probate Procedure 92.12 and the effect they would have on the public’s ability to monitor the state’s probate courts. Common law and the First Amendment require transparency in the judicial system. Such transparency helps the public understand how courts work and allows the public to more easily monitor their operation. The breadth of these proposed amendments, however, severely limits that understanding and oversight. In addition, no compelling reason has been presented by the court to justify these changes.
Testimony to Providence City Council Re: Opt-In Mass Delivery Ordinance (Jan. 3, 2017)
In short, we believe the ordinance unfairly targets certain First Amendment-protected speech without adequately addressing the littering problem it intends to solve. While well-intended, this type of ordinance has been ruled unconstitutional in municipalities across the country, and Providence need look no further than other cities in Rhode Island for examples of more reasonable alternatives. . . . Ordinance 11096, however, singles out for-profit newspapers and similar communications while reserving the right to leave literature (and presumably to some, litter) to other interests, including non-profit newspapers. A charity or political candidate can (appropriately, in our view) leave donation solicitations at a private residence under this ordinance, but a newspaper providing coverage of local affairs is prohibited from leaving a copy in the driveway.
To Mass. Supervisor of Public Records Re: Proposed Changes to 950 CMR § 32.00 (Oct. 6, 2016)
We write on behalf of the Steering Committee of the Massachusetts Freedom of Information Alliance (MassFOIA) to commend your efforts to implement Chapter 121 of the Acts of 2016, An Act to Improve Public Records, and to offer suggestions to clarify and strengthen the proposed regulations. . . . We hope these comments will help you refine the draft regulations to avoid potential confusion and ensure public access to information about the workings of our government.
To Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary Re: Federal Transparency (Sept. 12, 2016)
President Obama may be leaving the White House, but we aren’t going anywhere. Our promise to the American people is to keep fighting for their right to know what their elected officials are up to. To keep fighting for information and images they need to know and see to live their best, most informed, lives as American citizens.
To Rhode Island AG Kilmartin and Superintendent O’Donnell Re: 38 Studios (Aug. 2, 2016)
We are writing to express our deep distress and frustration over your refusal to release any documents related to your agencies’ four-year probe into the 38 Studios debacle. Particularly in light of the legitimate and extraordinarily strong public interest in this investigation, we believe the rationales you have offered for continued secrecy are less than compelling and do not hold up to careful scrutiny. . . . We therefore urge you to reconsider your decision in order to promote the public’s right to know and provide the transparency that Rhode Islanders expect and deserve from this investigation.
To Maine CDC Re: Proposed Changes to Data Release Rule (July 25, 2016)
While these changes are intended to protect the privacy of individuals, they are neither necessary nor helpful to the public’s response to infectious disease outbreaks. Worse, they may jeopardize the safety of those who would otherwise learn of potential risks to their health. The type of information that could be withheld under your proposal — the names of schools, community centers and restaurants where outbreaks occur, for example — is crucial to the public’s understanding of infectious diseases and necessary for a measured response to them.
To Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo Re: ‘Revenge Porn’ Legislation (June 15, 2016)
On behalf of the ACLU of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Press Association, and the New England First Amendment Coalition, we are writing to urge your veto of 16-H 7537 and 16-S 2540, the so-called “revenge porn” bills. We recognize the legitimate and serious privacy issues that are implicated by “revenge porn.” However, this bill is so breathtakingly broad in its reach that it criminalizes activity that involves neither revenge nor porn.
To Superior Court Justice Lauriat Re: Proposed Trial Court Rule XIV (May 4, 2016)
The Proposed Rules reflect significant work and time commitment by the Trial Court Public Access to Court Records Committee (the “Committee”), and we offer the following comments in the spirit of clarifying and improving that work.
To Rhode Island Gov. Raimondo Re: Inadequate Responses to APRA Requests (Oct. 6, 2015)
We are calling upon your office to issue clear and strong guidance to the executive departments under your command about the need to promote transparency in responding to APRA requests. In that regard, we would urge that you consider, among other things, the issuance of an executive order emphasizing the need for expeditious responses to APRA requests and calling upon executive agencies to adopt a strong presumption in favor of disclosure in addressing requests for public information.
To President Obama Re: Constraints on Access to Federal Government Information (Aug. 10, 2015)
The public has a right to be alarmed by these constraints — essentially forms of censorship — that have surged at all levels of government in the past few decades. Surveys of journalists and public information officers (PIOs) demonstrate that the restraints have become pervasive across the country; that some PIOs admit to blocking certain reporters when they don’t like what is written; and that most Washington reporters say the public is not getting the information it needs because of the constraints.
To U.S. Sen. Cardin Re: FOIA and Private Prisons (June 12, 2015)
Almost 20 percent of detainees and prisoners in the federal system are held in private jails or prisons. Tens of thousands more are held in jails or prisons run by local jurisdictions. Despite the fact they are holding people in federal custody under color of federal law, these non-federal entities are not subject to the federal FOIA, and the federal agencies that contract out for jail and prison beds often rely on FOIA Exemption 4 – the business trade secrets exemption – to avoid responding in full to FOIA requests pertaining to privately run facilities.
Written Testimony in Support of Mass. House Bill 2772 and Senate Bill 1676 (May 26, 2015)
The ability to gather news and inform communities, to understand government and engage with elected leaders, is essential to the democratic process. Yet in my role as executive director I regularly speak with journalists and community members from throughout the state who are frustrated at the inability to obtain information about their government, information that is public by law but in reality is unobtainable and essentially secret.
To Superior Court Justice Lauriat Re: Press Access to Docket Info on MassCourts.org (May 1, 2015)
For many years, the Superior Court Administrative Office granted journalists a user name and password that enabled them to review docket records statewide via www.ma-trialcourts.org. However, as courts have been migrating their docket information to the www.masscourts.org website, members of our coalition have asked for access to www.masscourts.org and been told that a BBO number is required to obtain a login number and password, and hence only members of the Massachusetts Bar can have access.
To Conn. Sen. Coleman and Rep. Tong Re: House Bill 6750 (May 1, 2015)
The Supreme Court last year, unfortunately, tipped the scale in favor of secrecy by ruling that a different section of the FOI statute governed requests for criminal records. The original H.B. 6750 passed by the Government Administration and Elections Committee would tip the scale back to the balance that existed for 20 years and require that § 1-210(b)(3) again control these requests.
It is our understanding that in anticipation of the statewide implementation of e-filing, a committee is in the process of drafting rules that will apply to documents filed electronically in the trial courts. Given the impact that any such rules will have on access to e-filed documents . . . our coalition respectfully requests that a representative from the media be appointed to that committee.
To U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Re: Private Prison Information Act of 2015 (March 11, 2015)
With respect to for-profit private prisons, we are deeply troubled by the secrecy with which the contract corrections industry continues to operate. Whereas the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and state departments of corrections are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and state public records statutes, respectively, private prison firms that contract with public agencies generally are not.
To President Obama Re: Actions in Commemoration of Sunshine Week (March 10, 2015)
Throughout the United States, federal and state government, media, non-profits, and the public will be celebrating Sunshine Week, an annual event spotlighting the right to know, from March 15th – 21st. The time is ripe, therefore, not only to examine the state of access to government information, but also to make strong advances in government openness. At the very outset of your Presidency, you committed to increase government transparency and accountability. We, the undersigned organizations, ask that you take the following steps this Sunshine Week to honor that commitment.
Comments on Amendments to Proposed Rules on Electronic Filing of R.I. Court Documents (Nov. 21, 2014)
“These comments are submitted on behalf of ACCESS/RI, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, Common Cause Rhode Island, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and the Rhode Island Press Association. They are a follow-up to those we submitted last month . . . [D]espite the changes made in the latest version of Provisional Article X and the accompanying Rules of Practice on October 31st, most of the key concerns we expressed in our detailed October 16th testimony remain.”
Comments on Rules Governing Electronic Filing of Court Documents (Oct. 20, 2014)
“The establishment of an electronic system of records should be encouraging greater access to records, not less. However unintended it may be, we believe these rules will invert the current default of openness in the judicial process to one that encourages and promotes secrecy.”
Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice Re: Ferguson, Missouri, Investigations (Sept. 22, 2014)
“As to the Civil Rights Division’s inquiries, we urge investigators to make the unlawful arrest and mistreatment of journalists a part of its formal probe. Because of the connection between the exercise of political freedoms and the freedom of the press, the Department’s mandate to examine the civil rights record of local police in Ferguson, which naturally will be the focus of the investigation, will nonetheless be illuminated by looking at the breakdown in newsgathering protections that occurred last month.”
Letter to Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States (May 13, 2014)
“Releasing a redacted version of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo to the Department of Defense explaining the justification for drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens is clearly in line with the Department of Justice’s best practices, and, more importantly, promotes openness and accountability.”
Request to U.S. Dept. of Justice to Withdraw Subpoena Against James Risen (Feb. 28, 2014)
“…countless stories of tremendous historical significance including: the Watergate break-in and cover up, the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and the systematic lack of adequate care for veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center would never have been written without the reporter’s ability to promise sources confidentiality and keep those promises…”
Letter to White House Press Secretary On Access of Photographers (Nov. 21, 2013)
“We write to protest the limits on access currently barring photographers who cover the White House. We hope this letter will serve as the first step in removing these restrictions and,therefore, we also request a meeting with you to discuss this critical issue further.”