State monitoring agencies like attorneys general and Supreme Courts comply in hindering public access to state documents and meetings.

That's the finding of the latest state-by-state annual report released today by the Associated Press on state and Federal government openness to public scrutiny in the U.S.

The series coincides with Sunshine Week, aimed at drawing attention to the public's right to know.

The report concluded that although all states have so-called "Sunshine Laws" against breaches like closed meetings, those laws are enforced unpredictably. Public violators "almost always walk away with nothing more than a reprimand," the study noted.

State attorneys general and Supreme Courts receive special mention for their frequent laxity over government secrecy. "Attorneys general are more likely to rule in favor of government offices that keep documents secret and doors closed," the report stated.

The study also notes that when government agencies were found to have broken Sunshine Laws, state overseers like AGs and high courts were most likely to bring a "don't do it again" punishment.

For example, in Arkansas last year the state Supreme Court refused to bring the only punishment possible - paying the petitioner's legal fees - against Fort Smith city officials who secretly purchased a downtown building.

Minnesota allows only civil penalties in sunshine-law violation cases but attorneys claim awards to petitioners, such as attorney fees, are also rare. New York state also levies no penalties but recently made recovering attorney fees easier for complainants.

In many states, just winning the verdict against state officials is tough enough. Iowa's body overseeing open-government laws received 445 complaints between 2005 and 2006, but substantiated just 63 cases, or 14 percent.

In the same period, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning received 106 complaints but found just eight violations, or 7.5 percent. All eight brought a public reprimand but no fine or prosecution, the AP study found.

Some observers say such 'courts of public opinion' have a more powerful effect on state-official behavior than judicial courts. Others say the occasional stiff prosecution, like those recently levied in Florida, is more effective.

Bruning in Nebraska recently pushed a law aimed at lowering costs for citizens trying to obtain public documents in open-government cases. He is now advocating mandatory open-government training courses for all Nebraska state officials.

But with no penalties for non-attendance, Bruning says.