The 2010 Sunny Awards for the best state and local government websites in America for transparency honored 39 of 5,000 reviewed websites with an A grade, 14 with a perfect score. Kansas received a B minus grade for Kansas.gov.

According to an evaluation by Sunshine Review, sponsors of the Sunny Awards, Kansas.gov received good marks for the following features:

• Budget is published.
• Information on state ethics commission is posted.
• Audit reports are published.
• State tax information is available.
• Elected and administrative officials are listed with contact information under respective office/department.
• Attorney General has Kansas Open Records Act FAQ.
• Current statewide contracts are published.
• Lobbyist expenditures posted.

Unfortunately the state site was marked down for the following reasons:

• Site has a search function, but is somewhat difficult to navigate.
• Some departments have contact info/form for making public record requests, but most do not appear to.
• Does not provide any information on state-paid lobbying and agency lobbying contracts.

Sunshine Review is a non-profit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency. The organization’s site collects and shares transparency information and uses a “10-point Transparency Checklist” to evaluate the content of every state and more than 5,000 local government websites. Sunshine Review collaborates with individuals and organizations to help inform citizens and foster accountable government.

Sunshine Review ranks Kansas 37^th in the nation for transparency on county websites, a grade that’s weighed down by twenty counties that don’t even have a web site.

The top scores garnered by Kansas counties were for posting the names and contact information for elected and administration officials. No counties posted contracts or lobbying information and only six posted any audit information.

Sunshine Review also looked at some city government web sites in Kansas. Wichita. Lenexa, Lawrence and Overland Park received B- grades with high marks for including budget, meetings, elected and administrative official information, permits and zoning and audits. They all received low marks for not including lobbying and local tax information and incomplete or no information on contracts.

The rankings are based on a Transparency Checklist covering 10 areas that provide a baseline of information government entities should provide online:

• Budgets: current budget, checkbook register and credit card receipts. Bonus points previous years and a chart to help evaluate trends
• Open meeting laws: notices about public meetings of its governing board, minutes of past meetings and agendas for past and future meetings

• Elected officials: should include names, contact information and voting record.

• Administrative Officials: names and contact information of key administrators,
• Building permits and zoning: Applications should be available for download and constituents should be able to submit applications and track the process online.

• Audits: audit information including report results, audit schedules and performance audits for government programs to help reveal how well the government performs on their goals and how elected officials kept their promises.

• Contracts: rules governing contracts including bids and contracts for purchases over $10,000 and the vendor’s campaign contributions posted with contract so people can evaluate if the contract was a no bid replacement and/or if the government chose the best solution for its constituents.

• Lobbying: Listing any taxpayer-funded lobbying associations so constituents can make sure what is being lobbied benefits the community.

• Public records: name contact information for the person in charge of fulfilling open records requests
• Taxes: a central location for all tax information for those looking to move or sell residences in their district. Disclosing tax burdens accurately reflects the cost of living.

Other reviews of Kansas open records law are mixed. A 2008 Better Government Association (BGA) report ranked Kansas’ open records law 18th in the nation. A 2007 study by BGA and the National Freedom of Information Coalition (NFIC) gave Kansas and 37 other states an F and ranked the state 25th out of 50. A 2002 study by BGA and Investigative Reporters and Editors gave Kansas a D.

The 2007 study gave Kansas full credit for response time but every other criteria scored no more than half the possible points.

“This (2007 BGA/NFIC) study shows that in the vast majority of states, citizens have little to no recourse when faced with unlawful denial of access under their state’s FOI laws,” said Charles N. Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. “It’s a cry for reform of FOI laws nationwide.”

From January 2007 to June 2008 there were 62 complaints filed at the county level according to reports submitted to the Kansas attorney general’s office. The attorney general’s office received 78 complaints during that time, including some referred from the county.

In most cases no violation was found. Some violations were resolved by delivery of the requested material. In a few cases the offending government employee or elected official was required to attend KORA or KOMA training. None of the violations covered by documents obtained from the attorney general’s office resulted in the $500 fine that is permitted by state law.

In 2009 the Illinois Legislature strengthened the state’s open government laws, but only after its governor, Rod Blagojevich, was indicted on federal corruption charges while the previous governor was already in federal prison for corruption.

For the first time Illinois law included a fine, up to $5,000, for deliberate violation of the state’s open government law according to one newspaper account.

The changes took effect Jan. 1 (2010). By Jan. 15, a measure to weaken the law was signed by the governor; the Springfield State Journal-Register reports that at least six other bills to weaken it are under consideration.

“I’m not a psychologist, but something happens to people when they work in these public agencies for a while,” said Tony Fargo, an Indiana University professor specializing in media law. “They start to see the records as ‘their’ records instead of ‘our’ records. They’re keeping and preserving those records for us so we can keep up with our government.”

Proposed changes in state open records laws