Summaries of World Bank Meetings Illuminate Proceedings (IFTI Watch)

-----Original Message-----
From: freedominfo.org [mailto:FREEDOMINFO@HERMES.GWU.EDU] On Behalf Of
freedominfo.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:12 AM
To: FREEDOMINFO@HERMES.GWU.EDU
Subject: Summaries of World Bank Meetings Illuminate Proceedings (IFTI
Watch)

freedominfo.org - Update, May 26, 2009

Summaries of World Bank Meetings Illuminate Proceedings (IFTI Watch)

http://www.freedominfo.org

Summaries of World Bank Meetings Illuminate Proceedings (IFTI Watch)

The "minutes" of the World Bank's executive board meetings, released
publicly, are brief notations of the official action, usually one paragraph.
They reveal almost nothing about what transpired during the closed
deliberations. The "summaries," by contrast, describe the key points of
discussion. They condense, without names, the comments made by the Executive
Directors (ED). The EDs are referred to as "speakers," and other Bank
officials go by "staff." The summaries for a typical hour-long meeting run a
half-dozen single-spaced pages in length. Recently, freedominfo.org reviewed
the summaries for seven board meetings held in early 2009, from February 3
to April 7.

http://www.freedominfo.org

_________________________________________________________________________

freedominfo.org is a one-stop portal that describes best practices,
consolidates lessons learned, explains campaign strategies and tactics, and
links the efforts of freedom of information advocates around the world. It
contains crucial information on freedom of information laws and how they
were drafted and implemented, including how various provisions have worked
in practice.

_________________________________________________________________________

PRIVACY NOTICE freedominfo.org does not and will never share the names or
e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any other organization. We would
welcome your input, and any information you care to share with us about your
special interests. But we do not sell or rent any information about
subscribers to any other party.

_________________________________________________________________________

USA: Republicans Press for Greater Disclosure

Republicans Press for Greater Disclosure
<http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/05/republicans.html>

Questions of secrecy and disclosure are increasingly prominent in
congressional interactions with the executive branch, particularly on the
part of Republican members of Congress.

House Republicans wrote (pdf) to Defense Secretary Gates this week to
complain about what they called "a disturbing trend of restricting budget
and inspection information within the Department of Defense."

They complained specifically about a recent policy of classifying reports of
ship inspections that were previously unclassified. "It is sometimes only
through the media and public awareness. that we learn of the urgent need to
address some of the shortfalls the military has.. If these reports are
classified, we are unable to communicate these needs to the public," wrote
Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and several Republican colleagues from the House
Armed Services Committee on May 5.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has a "moral obligation" to declassify
records concerning Uighur detainees who might be released into the United
States from Guantanamo, insisted Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA).

"This administration has already shown that it has no qualms about releasing
selected classified documents," Rep. Wolf said on May 4, referring to the
release of Office of Legal Counsel memos on torture. "The White House cannot
just pick and choose what classified information it deems worthy of
releasing.. I call on the Obama administration to declassify and release all
the information that they have available [about the Uighur detainees] so the
American people can make a judgment."
----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

USA: ACLU RELEASES REPORT ON PATRIOT ACT ABUSES

From the gagging of our nation's librarians under the national security
letter statute
newly re-launched site www.reformthepatriotact.org.

Patriot Act - Eight Years Later
<www.reformthepatriotact.org>

Reclaiming Patriotism: A Call to Reconsider the Patriot Act On December 31,
2009, three provisions of the Patriot Act will sunset. This is the perfect
opportunity for Congress to examine all of our surveillance laws and amend
those that have been found unconstitutional or have been abused to collect
information on innocent people, including last year's changes to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Attorney General Guidelines
(AGGs).

Despite the many amendments to these laws since 9/11, congress and the
public have yet to receive real information about how these powerful tools
are being used to collect information on Americans and how that information
is being used. All of these laws work together to create a surveillance
superstructure - and Congress must understand how it really works to create
meaningful protections for civil liberties.

The ACLU's recent report, Reclaiming Patriotism
<http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/patriot_report_20090310.pdf>,
provides more information on parts of the Patriot Act that need to be
amended.

* National Security Letters (NSLs). The FBI uses NSLs to compel internet
service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn
over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this
data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
Government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these secret record
demands go out each year. In response to an ACLU lawsuit (Doe v. Holder),
the Second Circuit Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional the part
of the NSL law that gives the FBI the power to prohibit NSL recipients from
telling anyone that the government has secretly requested customer Internet
records.

* Material Support Statute. This provision criminalizes providing "material
support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible
good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by
the Patriot Act and other laws since September 11, this section criminalizes
a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or
intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations. Federal courts have
struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases
have been dismissed or ended in mistrial.

* FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This past summer, Congress passed a law to
permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet
collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
This too must be amended to provide meaningful privacy protections and
judicial oversight of the government's intrusive surveillance power.
----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Europe: Journalists angry over the European Parliament's views on transparency

Journalists angry over the European Parliament's views on transparency
<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/mar/02sweden-journalists-access-reg.htm
>
- Swedish Union of Journalists

MEPs call for greater transparency - but want exceptions for themselves. The
parliament also wants to classify information which could be disadvantageous
to the interests of the European Union or of one or more of its Member
States.

"They have apparently learned nothing and understood nothing", says
Journalist Association President Agneta Lindblom Hulthén.

In a preliminary vote last week EP said no to the two central parts of the
Commission proposal on new transparency rules in the EU:

• The documents to be covered may not be defined more limited than what is
happening today.
• Proposal to erect a wall around its own management, for example on the
treatment of competition issues, must be rejected.

So far, the Parliament in line with the Journalist Association requirements,
and with clear statements from the Swedish Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask
and Minister for European Affairs Cecilia Malmström.

But at the same time it proposed in all seriousness:

• that they voted for their own accounts not to be subject to the desired
transparency, and
• that the EU institutions have more opportunities to classified documents.
It is sufficient that one "can be detrimental" to the EU or a member of it
shall not be disclosed! Selected and approved MPs would be allowed to read
the secret documents, but do not tell anyone what they have read.

The Swedish Journalists Unin is strongly critical of the Commission's
attempt to turn the clock back, and outraged by the Parliaments suggestions.

--snip--

[Translation]

Swedish Union of Journalists (link)

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Germany: Germany dodges disclosure of EU farm funds

Germany dodges disclosure of EU farm funds
<http://euobserver.com/9/28004/?rk=1>
VALENTINA POP. 24.04.2009

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The European Commission on Thursday (24 April) expressed its surprise at Germany's decision not to disclose the names of the farmers receiving EU aid, as every member state is required to do by 30 April.

A new regulation adopted last year after a long-fought battle with journalists and transparency groups requires all member states to publish on a website the names of all beneficiaries of EU agricultural aid, which accounts to some €55 billion a year, representing 43 percent of the EU budget.

"We are surprised at the situation because Germany voted and accepted this regulation. We are waiting for Germany to reverse its position, and if by 30 April the position has not changed, then there will be an infringement procedure," Natalie Charbonneau, spokeswoman for the commission said at a press briefing.

The threat is however a mild one, since the infringement, a legal procedure initiated by the commission when a member state breaches EU law – takes years until the case is brought before the European Court of Justice. It can also be cancelled at any stage if the country reverses the measure.

--snip--

"This is a disgrace. The handful of politicians and judges in Germany who are opposing transparency are acting as the puppets of big agri-business and wealthy landowners, who's only interest is to keep the German people in the dark about the reality of farm subsidies," Jack Thuston, co-founder of www.farmsubsidy.org, the journalist-launched initiative behind the EU requirement, said in a statement.

He also pointed to the fact that the commission can release the names of the beneficiaries if a member state dodged this requirement, because the EU executive does have this data on file.

"Farmsubsidy.org originally proposed that the commission publish the information in one single dataset, partly because it would be simpler, less bureaucratic and less fragmented, and partly in anticipation that some member states would backslide from their obligations, as Germany is now doing. Unfortunately the commission chose to pass the responsibility down to member states," he added.

--snip--

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

USA: Courts pay attention to new FOIA policy

Courts Pay Attention to New FOIA Policy
<http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/attention_foia.html>

A skeptical person might presume that the new Freedom of Information Act
policy <http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/03/ag031909.html>
announced by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 19 declaring that
agencies should "adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure" is a rhetorical
posture without much practical significance.

After all, requesters who used FOIA during the Clinton era know that
agencies frequently withheld information even when it would have caused no
"foreseeable harm," despite the policy
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/reno.html>
of Attorney General Reno that such information should be released. (Nor,
for that matter, did agencies during the Bush Administration always withhold
information every time they were legally entitled to do so, as the Ashcroft
policy <http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/ashcroft.html>
advised.)

But remarkably, federal courts are already considering the new Holder policy
in response to plaintiff requests and are modifying the course of pending
FOIA litigation as a result.

In one case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation <http://www.eff.org/> (EFF)
asked a court to stay a proceeding and to order the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to reconsider their
denial of requested records by employing the new Holder guidelines. Those
agencies opposed the idea. But in a March 23 opinion
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/eff032309.pdf> (pdf),
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted the
EFF motion.

Likewise, in another EFF FOIA lawsuit this week, Judge John D. Bates ordered

<http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/eff032409.pdf> (pdf)
the Department of Justice "to evaluate whether the new FOIA guidelines
affect the scope of its disclosures and claimed withholdings in this case."

"We now have four cases in which there are similar court orders," said David
Sobel, EFF senior counsel, which are "the result of our motions to stay
proceedings pending issuance of the new guidelines."

"I think it shows that a bit of aggressiveness on the part of FOIA litigants
will likely force the government to reconsider prior withholding decisions,"
he said.

The final sentence of the new Holder policy
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/ag031909.pdf> (pdf)
states that "This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by
any party against the United States, its departments, [or] agencies."

Whatever that sentence means, it is not stopping courts from invoking the
new memorandum against the government and against the Department of Justice
itself.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Europe: First European Open Data Summit: 5-7 May, Brussels

First European Open Data Summit: 5-7 May, Brussels
<http://www.followthemoney.eu/open-data-summit/>

By Jack Thurston, April 16, 2009

The people who brought European Union farm subsidy payments into the open
(and who are behind the FollowTheMoney.eu website) are proud to announce the
first European Open Data Summit, 5-7 May, in Brussels.

The Summit will bring together the farmsubsidy.org <http://farmsubsidy.org/>
team and leading lights in access to information, investigative and
computer-assisted reporting and 'civic hacking' for three days of intensive
collaboration, very much with an emphasis on getting things done. We will
take stock of recent moves towards greater transparency in the EU publish a
new inventory of European open data and work on new democracy and
transparency websites. The Summit itself is invitation-only but it will
conclude with a press conference / briefing session at the International
Press Centre, in the Residence Palace, from 2.15pm to 3.45pm. Commission
Vice-President Siim Kallas, who is responsible for the European Transparency
Initiative, will open the session and there will be short presentations from
Brigitte Alfter (wobbing.eu), Sara Hagermann (EU Vote Watch), Markus Knigge
(Pew Environment Group), Jana Mittermaier (Transparency International), Nils
Mulvad (farmsubsidy.org), and me, followed by a Q&A session.

Who we are
A network of journalists, researchers, activists and programmers working
together, across borders, to push the boundaries of government data
transparency in the EU.

What we do
We use our rights under access-to-information law to open up government-held
data to public scrutiny and make public data available in ways that are
useful to people. So far our work has mostly focussed on budget data but we
are expanding our work to other types of data.

Why we do it
We all have a right to know how what the government does on our behalf,
whether that means spending money or doing other things that affect our
everyday lives. National governments and EU institutions hold enormous
quantities of data, collected at our expense but too often kept secret.
Transparency is equally important in both in the fight against corruption
and the pursuit of better government and democracy.

Why a 'summit'?
Summits seem to be in fashion this year and we like the metaphor of scaling
a mountain of government data. Sometimes it really feels that way. And a few
of us like to climb real mountains too.

Where's the data?
In addition to the data we have already obtained on farm and fisheries
subsidies, we are building an inventory of data over here
<http://ckan.net/tag/read/eutransparency> .

Want to get involved?
Are you a database sleuth, investigative reporter, civic hacktivist, or an
expert in EU policies and institutions? Do you know where government data is
held and want help getting it out? Have you got a great idea for a democracy
or transparency website? Would like to take part in the Summit? If so, send
an email to summit {at} eutransparency(.)org
<mailto:summit%40eutransparency.org> explaining why or register your
interest on the project wiki <http://wiki.okfn.org/ckan/eutransparency/> ,
kindly hosted by the Open Knowledge Foundation. If you're not based in
Brussels and really can't afford to pay your own way, we may be able to help
with travel costs.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Mexico: FOI success stories

Documents in Action: FOI Success Stories in Mexico
<http://freedominfo.org/features/20090320.htm>
By Emilene Martinez-Morales. 20 March 2009

Mexico City, Mexico - Mexico's civil society have maximized the potential of
its Federal Access to Information Law
<http://freedominfo.org/documents/mexico_ley.pdf> to affect policies in
local communities, advocate for citizens' rights, and expose corruption at
the highest levels of state.

Openness advocates have utilized two key institutional features of Mexico's
access-to-information system. The electronic system for sending information
requests to federal agencies, Infomex <http://www.infomex.org.mx/> , also
allows citizens to review all public requests and responses to these
requests. the Federal Access to Information Institute (IFAI)
<http://www.ifai.org.mx/> , carries out the functions of an information
ombudsman's office, reviewing appeals for information, and maintaining a
good track record of ruling in favor of citizens requests.

Over 300,000 requests have been sent since the law was implemented in 2004.
This article highlights some of the revelations made possible through the
citizen requests sent through Mexico's Federal Access to Information Law:

In 2006, Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste
<http://www.maderasdelpueblo.org.mx/> —a nongovernmental environmental
organization supporting indigenous people and rural communities in
Chiapas—filed access to information requests using the federal transparency
law, seeking information about a sewage project in Cintalapa, a community
located inside the natural reserve of Montes Azules. The sewage system
negatively impacted neighboring Lacanja Tseltal, which was receiving waste
from a neighboring town and had no access to clean water. Information
released through these requests showed that the water treatment system was
not properly designed and needed a filter system that had not been
installed. Chlorine had to be poured manually into the water that flowed
back to the river. As a result, the Cintalapa sewage project was halted, and
authorities publicly acknowledged that changes had to be made to ensure
water was properly treated before it reached the people of Lacantun.

In May 2006 journalist Arelí Quintero published an investigative article in
Diario Monitor about Mexican aid sent to Southeast Asia after the 2004
tsunami. Through a series of access to information requests, Quintero
obtained detailed information from the office of President Fox about the
goods that were shipped by the Mexican Navy. The documents included the
inventory of aid shipments cleared by customs officials, which showed large
discrepancies in what was promised to victims of the tsunami, as opposed to
what was actually sent. Coffee makers, vests, tools, and other articles were
never shipped and, according to Quintero, remain unaccounted.

In 2007, Ciudadanos en Apoyo a Derechos Humanos
<http://www.cadhac.org/principal.html> (CADHAC)—an NGO based in the state
of Nuevo León in northeastern Mexico—worked with 200 inmates from a federal
prison in Nuevo León and trained them on how to access their own personal
records using the Federal Transparency and Access to Information Law. Most
of these inmates were in prison for minor offenses but could not afford
lawyers that could fight for reduced sentences for good conduct. Close to
100 requests for personal records were filed. At first, these requests were
denied, but an appeal to IFAI set a precedent that now guarantees inmates'
access to these records throughout the federal prison system. 35 inmates
were released from jail after obtaining their records.

In 2008 Fátima Monterrosa from Eme-Equis magazine won the National Press
Award in the Access to Information Category
<http://www.periodismo.org.mx/ganadores.html> for her investigative article
"Corrupción en el Estado Mayor Presidencial
<http://www.m-x.com.mx/2008-04-27/corrupcion-en-el-estado-mayor-presidencial
/#omment-294> ." Monterrosa used documents from the Office of the President
obtained through the Federal Access to Information Law. In her piece,
Monterrosa uncovers corrupt practices within the Presidential General Staff
including simulated contracts and ghost suppliers.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

IMF Begins Delayed Review of Transparency Policy

IMF Begins Delayed Review of Transparency Policy
<http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/20090331.htm>
31 MARCH 2009

The International Monetary Fund on March 25 requested public comment on its
transparency policy
<http://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/trans/2009/index.htm> .

The IMF asked for comments by April 30 and offered questionnaires for three
different types of potential respondents: "civil society organizations,"
"financial market participants," and "think tanks, academics and other
stakeholders."

Questionnaires

* Questionnaire for Civil Society Organizations
<http://guest.cvent.com/v.aspx?3B,Q3,a598ac64-aa44-43a3-8ec9-107114368999>
* Questionnaire for Financial Markets Participants
<http://guest.cvent.com/v.aspx?3B,Q3,674d81b3-feb9-4003-8d47-077c1f8abe59>
* Questionnaire for Think Tanks, Academics, and Other Stakeholders
<http://guest.cvent.com/v.aspx?3B,Q3,46f7a5f4-24fd-44db-8833-406d9f22a9cb>

Other e-mail comments are to be directed to transparency@imf.org

The IMF is seeking opinions on its 2005 transparency policy
<http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/20080215.htm> , but does not propose
specific changes.

Nor does the announcement describe the review process.

The IMF promoted its current policy, which has been criticized by
transparency activists, including the Global Transparency Initiative
<http://www.ifitransparency.org/?AA_SL_Session=be0a7653bdc806bfbdcc38bad8182
d7f&x=67291> .

The GTI in January 2008 has expressed concern about the decision by the
IMF's decision to delay by a year a planned review of its Transparency
Policy <http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/20080118c.htm> , originally
scheduled for 2008.

As described by the IMF: "The transparency policy establishes guidelines for
the release of IMF Executive Board documents to the public. The publication
status of most categories of documents is "voluntary but presumed ... and
once a document is issued to the Executive Board, any changes are limited."

The announcement states that "the review of the policy will focus on the
experience with the policy against the background of increased global
financial integration and greater emphasis on external communication since
the last evaluation of transparency
<http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2005/pn05116.htm> . For the review,
we would like to obtain external stakeholders' views on the usefulness,
accessibility, candor, and impact of IMF reports and other IMF information."

The questionnaire seems oriented as much to the quality of IMF information
as it is to the traditional elements of disclosure policy, the delineation
of what should be released, when and under what conditions.

For example, the questionnaire asks for respondents' views on the statement:
"The IMF is candid about its lending operations and policy recommendations
to countries with IMF-supported programs?"

The questionnaire asks respondents to check a box if they agree with a dozen
sentences, some of which are "Published IMF country reports influence the
financial markets," and "The IMF recently implemented major improvements in
its lending policy."

The survey further asks how IMF disclosure policy could be improved,
offering the options of easier to understand, more timely, more frank,
easier to access, and other.

The survey does not directly address a long-standing issue with IMF policy,
whether to require disclosure of all Article IV reports, a subject addressed
in a February 2008 freedominfo.org report
<http://www.freedominfo.org/ifti/20080215.htm>

The latest IMF tables on implementation of its disclosure policy
<http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2009/022309.pdf> , dated Feb. 23,
2009, indicate only slight improvement in the rate of disclosure of Article
IV reports and the number of deletions allowed.

By Toby McIntosh

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/

Europe: Ombudsman welcomes European Parliament's suggestions to improve public access to EU documents

Ombudsman welcomes European Parliament's suggestions to improve public
access to EU documents
<http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/press/release.faces/en/3838/html.bookmark>
Press release no. 6/2009. 11 March 2009

The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has welcomed today's vote
in the European Parliament (EP) on the Cashman Report which aims to ensure
wider public access to EU documents. The report is the EP's response to the
European Commission's proposals to change the current rules. The Ombudsman
has repeatedly expressed concerns that the Commission's proposals would mean
access to fewer, not more, documents.

Speaking after the vote, Mr Diamandouros said: "I am very pleased that the
European Parliament has, in effect, asked the Commission to rethink and
modify its proposals. I very much hope that the Commission will agree to do
so."

The Ombudsman welcomes the following key points of the Cashman Report:

* the broad definition of a document, including "any data or content
whatever its medium", as well as information contained in databases
* the possibility for the Ombudsman to advise on the existence of a
public interest in disclosure of a document, before a final decision is
taken
* the improvement and expansion of the institutions' public registers of
documents
* the appointment of information officers in the institutions, who will
be responsible for the correct application of the access to documents rules
* the principle that Member States should grant to their citizens at
national level at least the same level of transparency concerning EU
documents as is available at the EU level
* the elimination of Member States' right to veto the disclosure of
documents about how they implement Community law.

The Ombudsman expressed his hope that the Cashman Report would serve as a
basis for a common position acceptable to all institutions and benefiting
all European citizens to be reached under the Swedish EU presidency in the
second half of 2009.

----
Mark Perkins MLIS, MCLIP
www.markperkins.info

https://keyserver.pgp.com/