SPJ + Google are offering FREE “Covering and Protecting Your Elections” trainings in 15 cities. Find out where we’re headed and sign up here.

Sign In    Join SPJ    Donate

> Latest News, Blogs and Events (tap to expand)

Advertise with SPJ
Advertise with SPJ

Stay in Touch
Twitter Facebook Instagram LinkedIn

More Articles
Main listing | Archive

News: SPJ objects to Justice Department secretly confiscating journalist’s records
News: SPJ announces 2017 Mark of Excellence Award winners
News: 2018 Black Hole Award bestowed upon Trump and his administration
News: SPJ, GAP launch 'The Whistleblower Project'
News: SPJ urges Utah, Washington lawmakers to be honest, transparent
Quill: Fixing FOI: Big ideas for a new era of transparency

Freedom of Information
Find FOI in your state
FOI step-by-step guides

Quill: Stories About FOI
– Why the #FreePress editorials were not enough
– Meet the victims of violence against journalists
– World Press Freedom Day hits home

FOI Committee
This committee is the watchdog of press freedoms across the nation. It relies upon a network of volunteers in each state organized under Project Sunshine. These SPJ members are on the front lines for assaults to the First Amendment and when lawmakers attempt to restrict the public's access to documents and the government's business. The committee often is called upon to intervene in instances where the media is restricted.

Freedom of Information Committee Chair

Danielle McLean
Investigative reporter
Bio (click to expand) picture Danielle McLean is an investigative reporter at ThinkProgress and chair of SPJ’s Freedom of Information Committee. Over the past five years, McLean has worked as an investigative reporter at the Bangor Daily News and has been published in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, the MetroWest Daily News, the Milford Daily News, and dozens of weekly Massachusetts publications. She was ranked no. 13 in Scout Somerville magazine’s list of the top 40 local leaders in the City of Somerville, Massachusetts for her reporting at the Somerville Journal newspaper and has won the New England Newspaper and Press Association’s government, transportation, business and economic, and courts and crime reporting awards. McLean previously served as president of SPJ’s New England chapter, pushing for public records reform and a free press. Under her watch, the chapter won SPJ’s 2014-15 Circle of Excellence award for Freedom of Information.

Reading Room
Freedom of Information
First Amendment/
Public & the Press

Articles for...
Young Journalists
International Journalists

Home > Freedom of Information > Reading Room > Revised OPEN Government Act: Complete details and analysis

SPJ Reading Room

Revised OPEN Government Act: Complete details and analysis

Sens. Patrick Leahy and John Cornyn introduced a revised version of the FOIA reform bill, the OPEN Government Act of 2007, in the Senate on Dec. 6. Below is a quick summary of where we stand on FOIA reform, followed by additional details.

The new FOIA reform bill introduced in the Senate yesterday works out some of the problems with the versions passed by the House and Senate earlier this year. The same bill will be introduced in the House. Though counterintuitive, sending new, identical bills through both houses of Congress was the only way to move ahead quickly without sending the previously-passed versions into Conference, which is often a dangerous prospect. We don’t anticipate any opposition in either chamber of Congress, and we expect both the House and Senate to fast-track their respective bills and pass them before Congress recesses for the holidays. Once passed, FOIA reform can be sent to the President for his signature. The President has not threatened a veto.

Additional Information
Taking a step back, the original OPEN Government Act of 2007 (S. 849) passed the Senate by unanimous consent back in August. The House version (H.R. 1309) passed earlier this year. However, the two versions weren’t identical. To avoid sending the bills into Conference where closed doors prevent us from knowing about or having any influence on what goes on, we looked at several possibilities. Because of Sen. Kyl’s opposition, it would have been nearly impossible to pass the House version through the Senate. It would have been equally problematic to pass the Senate version through the House because the Senate version lacked the mandatory procedural pay-go provision (which requires any new expenditures created by the bill to be offset in the bill itself, in other words requiring legislators to “pay as they go”) and incorporated a last-minute drafting error regarding b(3) exemptions that would have made new b(3), or catch-all, exemptions to FOIA easier to draft into new legislation.

After much discussion, the staffs of Sen. Leahy and Sen. Waxman worked together to create this new bill that cures those defects. While it seems counterproductive to start with two new bills in both Houses of Congress, avoiding Conference on the previous two bills will actually save time and ensure that the bill that is signed into law is what we intended. On the Senate side, the bill has the approval of both Sens. Cornyn and, believe it or not, Kyl. Thus, the bill will likely go through the Senate quickly on unanimous consent. We have no reason to believe, with Sen. Kyl’s blessing, that any Senator will attempt to put an anonymous hold on or otherwise try to block the bill. We also do not anticipate any opposition in the House.

Without opposition, both of these bills should move quickly and may be passed by both the House and the Senate by the time they break for the holidays. As we have a better idea of a timetable, we will let you know. Because both bills are identical, once they are passed by their respective houses of Congress, a final bill can be sent to the President for his signature. Unlike the shield bill, the President has not threatened to veto FOIA reform.

On a related note, negotiations continue on the shield law, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. The House version (H.R. 2102) passed by a landslide in October. The Senate version (S. 2035) awaits a full floor vote in the Senate. Sen. Kyl remains an obstacle to passage, but we have been holding back criticism because he and Sen. Schumer continue to work in good faith to resolve Sen. Kyl’s concerns. We believe any negative press at this point would be detrimental to that effort, but will certainly let you know if negotiations break down and we need to start putting pressure on him. Given the Senate’s busy calendar before it breaks for the holidays, we don’t anticipate that the shield bill will see a floor vote before the new year. However, once Congress returns, we anticipate that Sen. Leahy will make another push to get the bill to the floor in short order.

Because of the positioning of the bills, we recommend that SPJ leaders and members hold off on any publicity for the moment other than general attention endorsing both the FOIA reform and shield bills and pushing for their quick passage.

Presented by Laurie Babinski, Baker & Hostetler LLP

Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007
(“OPEN Government Act of 2007”) (Cornyn-Leahy)
Section-by-Section Analysis (revisions in italics)

Sec. 1. Short Title. The Open Government Act of 2007.

Sec. 2. Findings. The findings reiterate the intent of Congress upon enacting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended, and restate FOIA’s presumption in favor of disclosure.

Sec. 3. Protection of Fee Status for News Media. This section amends 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) to make clear that independent journalists are not barred from obtaining fee waivers solely because they lack an institutional affiliation with a recognized news media entity. In determining whether to grant a fee waiver, an agency shall consider the prior publication history of the requestor. If the requestor has no prior publication history and no current affiliation with a news organization, the agency shall review the requestor’s plans for disseminating the requested material and whether those plans include distributing the material to a reasonably broad audience.

Sec. 4. Recovery of Attorney Fees and Litigation Costs. This section, the so-called Buckhannon fix, amends 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) to clarify that a complainant has substantially prevailed in a FOIA lawsuit, and is eligible to recover attorney fees, if the complainant has obtained relief through a judicial or administrative order or if the pursuit of a claim was the catalyst for the voluntary or unilateral change in position by the opposing party. The section responds to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), which eliminated the “catalyst theory” of attorney fee recovery under certain Federal civil rights laws. FOIA requestors have raised concerns that the holding in Buckhannon could be extended to FOIA cases. This section preserves the “catalyst theory” in FOIA litigation. Adds House pay/go language to require that any attorneys’ fees be paid from annually appropriated agency funds.

Sec. 5. Disciplinary Actions for Arbitrary and Capricious Rejections of Requests. FOIA currently requires that when a court finds that agency personnel have acted arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to withholding documents, the Office of Special Counsel shall determine whether disciplinary action against the involved personnel is warranted. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F). This section of the bill amends FOIA to require the Attorney General to notify the Office of Special Counsel of any such court finding and to report the same to Congress. It further requires the Office of Special Counsel to report annually to Congress on any actions taken by the Special Counsel to investigate cases of this type.

Sec. 6. Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests. The section clarifies that the 20-day time limit on responding to a FOIA request commences on the date on which the request is first received by the appropriate agency component. Further, the section states that if the agency fails to respond within the 20-day limit, the agency must refund the FOIA search fees collected in connection with that FOIA request. Adds House pay/go language to require that any attorneys’ fees be paid from annually appropriated agency funds.

Sec. 7. Individualized Tracking Numbers for Requests and Status Information. Requires agencies to establish tracking systems by assigning a tracking number to each FOIA request; notifying a requestor of the tracking number within ten days of receiving a request; and establishing a telephone or Internet tracking system to allow requestors to easily obtain information on the status of their individual requests, including an estimated date on which the agency will complete action on the request.

Sec. 8. Reporting Requirements. This section adds to current reporting requirements by mandating disclosure of data on the 10 oldest active requests pending at each agency, including the amount of time elapsed since each request was originally filed, and requires additional breakdowns depending on the length of delay. This section further requires agencies to calculate and report on the average response times and range of response times of FOIA requests. (Current requirements mandate reporting on the median response time.) Finally, this section requires reports on the number of fee status requests that are granted and denied and the average number of days for adjudicating fee status determinations by individual agencies. The bill does not include the “Specific Citations in Exemptions” provision that was set forth in Section 8 of S. 849.

Sec. 9. Openness of Agency Records Maintained by a Private Entity. This section clarifies that agency records kept by private contractors licensed by the government to undertake recordkeeping functions remain subject to FOIA just as if those records were maintained by the relevant government agency.

Sec. 10. Office of Government Services. This section establishes an Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration. Within that office will be appointed a FOIA ombudsman to review agency policies and procedures, audit agency performance, recommend policy changes, and mediate disputes between FOIA requestors and agencies. The establishment of an ombudsman will not impact the ability of requestors to litigate FOIA claims, but rather will serve to alleviate the need for litigation whenever possible.

Sec. 11. Report on Personnel Policies Related to FOIA. This section requires the Office of Personnel Management to examine how FOIA can be better implemented at the agency level, including an assessment of whether FOIA performance should be considered as a factor in personnel performance reviews, whether a job classification series specific to FOIA and the Privacy Act should be considered, and whether FOIA awareness training should be provided to federal employees.

More Articles
Main listing | Archive

News: SPJ objects to Justice Department secretly confiscating journalist’s records
News: SPJ announces 2017 Mark of Excellence Award winners
News: 2018 Black Hole Award bestowed upon Trump and his administration
News: SPJ, GAP launch 'The Whistleblower Project'
News: SPJ urges Utah, Washington lawmakers to be honest, transparent
Quill: Fixing FOI: Big ideas for a new era of transparency

Twitter Facebook Instagram LinkedIn RSS

Copyright © 1996-2018 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved.

Legal | Policies

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St., Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46208

Contact SPJ Headquarters
Employment Opportunities
Advertise with SPJ