tively by an agency without an announced recess period between meetings. For example, sessions announced in the following manner were designated as PO/C regardless of the designation given them by the agency:

9:00 a.m.-Open.

9:45 a.m.-Closed (or held at the conclusion of the open session).

Any two sessions held consecutively but with an announced recess period between them where one of the sessions was open and the other closed were designated as separate meetings. For example:

9:00 a.m.-Open.

12:00 noon-Recess for lunch.

2:00 p.m.-Closed.

The chart beginning on page 22 provides a listing of the total number of open, closed, and partially open/closed meetings held by each agency covered by the Act. In addition, we included the number of times exemptions were used by each agency to close a meeting or portion of a meeting.

The Act requires agencies to cite the relevant exemption justifying the closing of a meeting or portion. Our data regarding exemptions is based on information supplied by each agency to Common Cause. The total number of exemptions exceeds the number of closed or partially closed meetings because agencies are permitted to cite more than one exemption when closing a meeting or portion of a meeting.

IV. FINDINGS

The chart on page 22 summarizes the total number of meetings held by the 47 agencies covered by the Act as well as the use of exemptions to close meetings or portions of meetings.

As the data indicate, a large number of meetings held by the agencies were closed or partially closed to the public and press. Our survey found that:

-39 percent (or 232) of 591 meetings held during the quarterly period were entirely closed to the public;

-24 percent (or 143) of 591 meetings held during the quarterly period were partially closed to the public; and

-only 37 percent (or 216) of the 591 meetings held were fully open to the public; and

-exemptions relating to financial information accounted for 38 percent of the exemptions used to close meetings.

No comparative data exist to measure the impact of the Act on the meeting practices of the covered agencies. The large number of meetings which were not open to the public raises serious questions about the extent of agency compliance with the Act. In light of the fact that the law contains a presumption in favor of openness, we believe the fact that less than forty percent of agency meetings were entirely open to the public indicates the possibility of agency over use of the exemptions. Even where a matter falls within one of the Act's ten exemptions, the Act provides that the discussion must be open where the public interest requires. We doubt that the authors of this legislation anticipated that fewer than forty percent of all meetings held would be entirely open to the public. We find it highly unlikely that the public interest is served where more than sixty percent of the meetings are closed or partially closed to the public.

Our analysis of the use of exemptions by agencies closing meetings or portions of meetings indicates that the exemptions were used to close entire meetings or portions of meetings 825 times. Thirty eight percent (or 315) of the time the exemptions cited were those regarding financial information (exemptions 4, 8, and (9) (A)).

This heavy use of the financial exemptions is in spite of the fact that much of the public debate surrounding the need for exemptions in the Government in the Sunshine Act centered on the concerns in the Government in the Sunshine Act centered on the concern for national security and the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. An analysis of the data reveals that matters of national security (exemption 1) accounted for only 1.5 percent of the closed meetings or portions while invasion of personal privacy (exemption 6) was cited for closing only 9 percent of the time.

The data indicate that financial exemptions may well be over used by agencies without concern for the public interest in these important matters.

We can only conclude that agency compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act is a mixed record. A number of agencies appear to be making every effort to contract their business in the sunshine and provide the public with the fullest

practicable information regarding their decision-making process. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board has held nearly 70 percent of its meetings in open session. Additionally, the CAB's regulations implementing the Act's open meeting provisions permit any person to petition the Board to reconsider the closing of a meeting.

Another agency that appears to have gone beyond the literal requirements of the Sunshine Act in several ways in order to affirmatively implement the spirit of open government is the U.S. International Trade Commission. First, the Commission did not exercise (as it could have) the option under the expedited closing provision which would permit an agency to close its meetings by regulation. Second, the Commission's regulations go beyond the literal requirements of the Act by requiring that a complete transcript or electronic recording be kept for all Commission meetings whether open or closed to the public. Third, the Commission through its informative notices has taken affirmative steps to widely disseminate public notices by maintaining a "sunshine" mailing list and by sending copies of these notices to the press.

Most agencies have not gone beyond the minimum requirements in order to carry out the spirit of the legislation. Many agencies seem to be adapting to the Act but only grudgingly. They view the Act as a procedural burden to be circumvented when possible. They continue to conduct business as usual behind closed doors.

The Federal Reserve Board is a prime example. Chairman Arthur Burns fought vigorously in Congress to exempt the Board from the law. Although the Board is covered by the Act, the broad language of the exemptions dealing with financial matters mean that as a practical matter few of the Board's meetings will be open to the public. In fact, of the 37 meetings held by the Fed, 30 were entirely closed. The disproportionately large number of closed meetings are justified by the Fed on the grounds that matters of a sensitive financial nature were being considered by the Board as permitted by the Act. But the fact that the Board elected to close one of its meetings in order to consider a proposed office furniture design as well as the Board's building renovation project raises serious questions about the Fed's willingness to comply with the spirit and meaning of the Sunshine Law (see 42 F.R. 21899).

Another agency worthy of attention is the Interstate Commerce Commission which recently disposed of one of the most important cases in its history in private. Although not reflected in our data because it occurred after the first calendar quarter of the Act, the Commission close its June 28, 1977 meeting to determine the tariff rates on the transportation of oil in the Alaska pipeline. Certainly a question of such national importance should have been considered in open session based on an agency finding that the public interest would be served by openness. A more recent example of the ICC's questionable application of the Sunsine Act occurred on August 17, 1977 when, according to an article appearing in the Washington Star of August 28, 1977, agency members met in private over lunch with members of a trade association (the National Industrial Traffic League) According to the ICC's general counsel "it wasn't a meeting to conduct business or deliberation, it was a working meeting with general exchanges of views so in terms of the Sunshine Act it was not a meeting." We believe this is a perverse interpretation of the Act in light of the fact that as a matter of policy, agencies are obligated to broadly define meetings in order to further the spirit of the Act (see S. Rept. 94-354 at 18). Certainly no one would deny the importance of an agency attempting to gain insight as to the problems affecting the business they are charged with regulating. However, we doubt the wisdom or the propriety of an agency meeting in private with an association that has a clear and vested interest in the outcome of agency decisions.

These examples point to agency disregard for the spirit and sometimes the letter of the Act. They indicate that the fact that less than 40 percent of all meetings are entirely open to the public may have as much to do with agency attitudes regarding openness and accountability in government as it does with the legitimate use of the Act's exemptions.

AGENCIES COVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

1. Board for International Broadcasting (BIB).

2. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB).

3. Commodiy Credit Corporation (CCC) (Board of Directors). 4. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

5. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

6. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

7. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

9. Export-Import Bank of the United States (EIB) (Board of Directors).

9. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

10. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (Board of Directors).

11. Federal Election Commission (FEC).

12. Federal Farm Credit Board (FFCB) within the Farm Credit Administration.

13. Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

14. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC).

15. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC).

16. Federal Power Commission (FPC).

17. Federal Reserve Board (FRB).

18. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

19. Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation (HSTSF) (Board of Directors). 20. Indian Claims Commission (ICC).

21. Inter-American Foundation (IAF).

22. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).

23. Mississippi River Commission (MRC).

24. National Center for Productivity and the Quality of Working Life (NCPQWL).

25. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) 26. National Council on Educational Research (NCER).

27. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

28. National Mediation Board (NMB).

29. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (NRPC).

30. National Science Board (NSB) of the National Science Foundation. 31. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

32. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

33. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC).

34. Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) (Board of Directors). 35. Postal Rate Commission (PRC).

36. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).

37. Renegotiation Board (RB).

38. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

39. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Board of Directors).

40. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) (Board of Regents).

41. U.S. Civil Service Commission (USCSC).

42. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR).

43. U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (USFCSC).

44. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).

45. U.S. Parole Commission (USPC).

46. U.S. Postal Service (USPS) (Board of Governors).

47. U.S. Railway Association (USRA).

SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD BY AGENCIES UNDER THE SUNSHINE ACT

SUMMARY OF MEETINGS HELD BY AGENCIES UNDER THE SUNSHINE ACT-Continued