<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Attorney General - Local Open Government Blog</title>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/articles/in-the-news/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:03:25 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:19:42 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Attorney General Opinion Request Relating to Council Committees and OPMA</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Office of Attorney General has been asked to render an opinion regarding the application of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) to a particular issue involving the meetings of city council committees. The questions to the Attorney General relate to the impact of non-committee councilmembers attendance at a committee meeting.</p>
<p>To view a copy of the notice of the pending opinion request, click&nbsp;<a href="http://www.localopengovernment.com/uploads/file/OpinionDocket-No_10-070-04.pdf">HERE</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/07/articles/public-records/attorney-general-opinion-request-relating-to-council-committees-and-opma/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/07/articles/public-records/attorney-general-opinion-request-relating-to-council-committees-and-opma/</guid>
<category>Attorney General</category><category>In the courts</category><category>OPMA</category><category>Opinion</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Washington Open Public Meetings Act</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:03:25 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Steve DiJulio</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments from State of Washington</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 28, 2010 in the case of Doe v. Reed [Sam Reed, Washington State's Secretary of State].&nbsp; As we have <a href="http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/us-supreme-court-will-hear-oral-argument-tomorrow-from-state-of-washington/">previously blogged</a>, the case addresses whether public release of&nbsp;referendum petition signatories under Washington&rsquo;s Public Records Act violates First Amendment rights.&nbsp; The justices sharply questioned the plaintiff's attorney, who sought to prevent release of the names of people who signed a referendum petition to require a public vote to overturn Washington&rsquo;s &ldquo;everything but marriage act.&rdquo;&nbsp; A <em>Seattle Times</em> article on the oral arguments including a public transcript is available <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011723164_scotus29.html">here</a>.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/us-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-from-state-of-washington/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/us-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-from-state-of-washington/</guid>
<category>Attorney General</category><category>Doe v. Reed</category><category>First amendment</category><category>In the courts</category><category>Legislation</category><category>Ninth Circuit</category><category>Protect Marriage Washington</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:04:53 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Sven Peterson</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Argument Tomorrow From State of Washington</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Tomorrow (April 28, 2010), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of <em>Doe v. Reed</em> &ndash; addressing the question of whether the release of the names of referendum petition signatories pursuant to Washington&rsquo;s Public Records Act violates First Amendment rights.</p>
<p>The case involves the attempt to seek release of the names of people who signed a referendum petition to require a public vote to overturn the legislature&rsquo;s enactment of Washington&rsquo;s &ldquo;everything but marriage act.&rdquo;&nbsp; The Secretary of State was poised to release the names, when a group named &ldquo;Protect Marriage Washington&rdquo; and two individual signatories to the referendum petition (John Doe #1 and #2) sought a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court to stop the release.&nbsp; The District enjoined the release finding that it would impinge on First Amendment rights.&nbsp; The Ninth Circuit heard expedited review of that ruling and reversed the decision on October 15, 2009 &ndash; before the election.&nbsp;<em>Doe v. Reed</em>, 586 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2009).&nbsp; Four days later, however, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Ninth Circuit ruling, reinstated the District Court&rsquo;s preliminary injunction and accepted review.&nbsp;<em>Doe v. Reed</em>, No. 09-559.</p>
<p>The Washington Attorney General&nbsp; will argue the case tomorrow on behalf of the State&rsquo;s Secretary of State,&nbsp; and urge the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit ruling.&nbsp; The State&rsquo;s position is that when people sign a referendum petition to substitute their view for that of the Governor and Legislature, they are engaging in a public legislative process and have no expectation of privacy when they sign such a referendum petition.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/us-supreme-court-will-hear-oral-argument-tomorrow-from-state-of-washington/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/in-the-courts/us-supreme-court-will-hear-oral-argument-tomorrow-from-state-of-washington/</guid>
<category>Attorney General</category><category>Doe v. Reed</category><category>First amendment</category><category>In the courts</category><category>Legislation</category><category>Ninth Circuit</category><category>Protect Marriage Washington</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:26:38 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Will Patton</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Washington AG Calls for Administrative Board to Manage Public Records Claims</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Washington Attorney General has called for legislation to create an administrative board to manage disputes over Public Record Act claims. The legislation is not likely to be considered until 2011. In an <a href="http://crosscut.com/2010/03/18/washington-agencies/19677/">op-ed piece in <em>Crosscut</em></a>, AG Rob McKenna noted during &quot;Sunshine Week&quot; that this would save substantial costs when compared with the current process of litigation.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/03/articles/public-records/washington-ag-calls-for-administrative-board-to-manage-public-records-claims/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/03/articles/public-records/washington-ag-calls-for-administrative-board-to-manage-public-records-claims/</guid>
<category>Attorney General</category><category>In the news</category><category>Legislation</category><category>McKenna</category><category>Open Public Meetings Act</category><category>Open Records Dispute</category><category>Public Meetings</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Taxpayer</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:07:34 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Steve DiJulio</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>McKenna, Sonntag Launch Open Government Task Force</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday&rsquo;s editions of the <a href="http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/994331.html">Olympian</a> and the <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/oct/06/pair-lead-struggle-for-more-open-government/">Spokesman-Review</a> reported that the Attorney General and the State Auditor held the first meeting of their jointly created Open Government Task Force this last Monday. This Task Force is distinguished from the legislatively-created Public Records Exemptions Accountability Committee (the &quot;<a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/opengovernment/sunshine.aspx">Sunshine Committee</a>&quot;), which is charged with reviewing all exemptions to the Public Disclosure Act on an annual basis and making recommendations to repeal or amend exemptions to the Public Records Act. According to an <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&amp;id=23716">Attorney General press release</a>, the Open Government Task Force was created &ldquo;to study and make recommendations on the creation of an administrative board to rule on complaints of violations of the Public Records Act and the Open Public Meetings Act.&rdquo; The Attorney General&rsquo;s website provides that the Task Force is charged with determining &ldquo;an efficient and inexpensive solution&hellip;to resolve complaints and provide greater access to public records and public meetings while reducing costs to government agencies and the public.&rdquo;</p>
<p>More information about the Task Force can be obtained on the <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/TaskForce.aspx">Attorney General&rsquo;s web page</a> and on the <a href="http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/News/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=52&amp;RootFolder=%FEN%2FNews%2FLists%252News">Washington State Auditors Office web page</a>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-news/mckenna-sonntag-launch-open-government-task-force/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-news/mckenna-sonntag-launch-open-government-task-force/</guid>
<category>Attorney General</category><category>In the news</category><category>Open Government Task Force</category><category>Open Public Meetings</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:27:39 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Rosa Fruehling-Watson</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>