FOI FYI

Shields up! Contact your U.S. senator today! (or at least before Thursday)

DavidCuillier — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:31:00 GMT

Now is the time to contact your U.S. senator to support the federal shield law. On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider passing S. 448, the Free Flow of Infomation Act. The bill isn't perfect, but it would provide projection to people who commit acts of journalism from willy-nilly federal subpoenas.

Act now. It's easy. Go to the SPJ shield law Web site and also find links to U.S. senators. Click to fill out an easy form to submit your thoughts on the matter. For a list of the senators on the Judiciary Committee, with links to online contact information, see below. Also, for a great tip sheet on how to deal with a subpoena, check out this great tip sheet provided at the SPJ national conference last month.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee members (click on the name below to get you to each senator's contact message form - it's easy!):

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Edward Kaufman (D-Del.)
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.)

Programming Note: We've Moved!

bokeefe — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:05:00 GMT

The SPJ Blogs Network has moved to the Wordpress platform, making it easier than ever to join the convesation. No registration of any kind is necessary. You can find the new home of the FOI FYI blog by following this link. RSS subscribers, update your readers by pointing it to this URL.

Other Links
— Visit the new SPJ Blogs Network
— RSS (All National Blogs)
— RSS (All Regional Blogs)

Documents called the bluff of military's reporter profiling

DavidCuillier — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:33:00 GMT

Kudos to the Stars and Stripes for showing through government records that the military has been rating the tenor of reporters' news coverage and denying access based on the journalists' perceived negativity (see Stars and Stripes coverage).

For some time the military denied that its hired PR firm rated reporters as either negative, neutral or positive. But documents leaked to the paper showed otherwise. More so, the firm analyzed how easily manipulated reporters are, and provided suggestions for how to do so. One reporter's coverage was deemed "subjective" and steering him toward covering "the positive work of a successful operation" could "result in favorable coverage."

The military fired the firm, but I doubt this is the end of the practice. The newspaper has put in a formal FOIA request for all the documents, so we'll see what else pops up. I wonder what other agencies are doing the same thing?

Judge says Fed must divulge bailout beneficiaries

DavidCuillier — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:35:00 GMT

Today a New York district court judge ruled that the Federal Reserve Board must provide records identifying financial firms that received bailout money.

According to a Bloomberg story, the Feds refused to provide the records to Bloomberg, saying that if the public knew which companies took loans then it might shake confidence in those companies. The judge decided that it's more important that the public know where it's money is going.

Courts have previously denied access to these records, so it's possible this might get appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In any case, this is a victory for the public's right to know who is benefiting from its tax dollars.

Pentagon using PR firm to screen reporters' coverage before embedding them

DonaldMeyers — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:00 GMT
According to Stars and Stripes, the Rendon Group is evaluating the work of reporters seeking to be embedded with units in Afghanistan to determine if their coverage of the war is "positive, neutral or negative." Rendon is the PR firm that helped tout the claims of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the 2005 invasion.

Pentagon officials claim the screening is not meant to block reporters from the field, but let commanders know who they're dealing with. And if you believe that, I've got a great time share in a ski chalet on the Bonneville Salt Flats I'll sell you. Making sure only reporters who give positive coverage to the war effort doesn't guarantee accurate reporting: It assures the Pentagon that they have a conduit to put their spin in the media.

President Barack Obama promised us a more transparent government. It's time the Pentagon read that memo and ditched this screening arrangement.

Speak out against Big Brother monitoring of press interviews

DavidCuillier — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:55:00 GMT

Ever have a federal agency insist that interviews with government employees be supervised by a public relations officer? This practice is out of control and we are urging the Obama administration to put a stop to it. You can help.

The Association of Health Care Journalists and the Society of Professional Journalists have written to the Obama administration asking it to end the practices of federal agencies forbidding staff people from speaking to reporters without being tracked and monitored by the public relations offices.

These policies have become ubiquitous over 10-15 years in all kinds of organizations, national and local, public and private. They are, inherently, censorship since staff routinely convey only the official story when they are monitored by their bosses and the political administration. But we seem to have gained some traction in the last few weeks.

FDA, under the new administration, has a Transparency Task Force looking into various openness issues. At its recent meeting Kathryn Foxhall, an AHCJ member, testified that these "permission-to-speak" practices are severe censorship. The testimony got significant interest from the task force members, who are major FDA officials. (The task force link is on the front of the FDA webpage, there is a link to the meeting's transcript. Search on Foxhall for the testimony)

At an FDA meeting August 14 the Transparency Task Force coordinator said the White House is "very, very interested" in the task force's work. She also said that media policy and responding to media inquiries are one of about five "buckets" that the comments to the task force are falling into. Foxhall says that this would never have been on the radar screen if AHCJ and SPJ had not spoken up.

Meantime, FDA has re-opened the transparency docet for comments. It also plans another meeting this fall, and FDA Commissioner Hamburg wants a report by the end of the year.

We could really use all kinds of journalists and news organizations commenting on this. Not everybody covers FDA, but if the agency were to change its policy it would be a huge precedent, one that could be used against these mandates across the country. Keep in mind the Administration HAS made strong statements on transparency and there IS new blood at FDA.

Even a couple of sentences would be helpful. Comments can be input online at a special Web site, or go to www.regulations.gov, click on "submit a comment" and search on FDA transparency. Other information: The Transparency Task Force information, including a transcript and webview, is at www.fda.gov. You can also comment on their blog.

Access groups call for end to "off-the-record" press conferences

DavidCuillier — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:31:00 GMT

The Society of Professional Journalists and 12 other groups are calling for an end to the disturbing practice of officials speaking off-the-record when talking at press conferences and large gatherings.

In a press release and letter issued today by the Sunshine in Government Initiative, the groups urged the Obama administration and congress to stop the practice of avoiding accountability at public gatherings. For example, at a recent gathering of 300 people, two high-level Hill staffers said their comments would be off the record. Some officials speaking at public forums at universities in front of thousands of people have insisted their comments not be reported by campus newspapers. This practice, a form of prior restraint, needs to end.

Illinois strengthens public records law

DavidCuillier — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:16:00 GMT

Today the Illinois governor signed into law changes that will put some teeth into the state's freedom of information act (see governor's statement and the full text of Senate Bill 189). This is great because Illinois has had one of the weakest state public records laws in the country, in my opinion. Every state should adopt these changes, if they don't already have them (and most don't):

Requires public employees to complete training on the state public records law so they understand their obligations.

A public access counselor within the attorney general's office has the authority to look at records denied by an agency and any decision is binding on the agency.

A person can still sue, but the burden is on the agency to prove that the record is exempt by "clear and convincing evidence."

If a person prevails in court then the agency SHALL (instead of "may") pay for that person's attorney fees and court costs. Also, if the agency is found to have "willfully" or "intentionally" failed to comply with the law then the agency shall pay a fine of $2,500 to $5,000.

Clarifies that settlements between agencies and private parties are public records.

Agencies have five days to respond to a request (instead of the previous deadline of seven days).

An agency that fails to meet the response deadlines must provide the records for free (no copy charges).

Records shall be provided in the format that the requester wants, if it is available in that format (including electronic formats).

Copy fees shall include only the actual cost of producing the copy, not including staff time (the actual cost of copies for most agenices, I've found, including paper, toner, maintenance and machine cost is less than 2 cents per page. Although, the Illinois legislation says it shall be no more than 15 cents per page, which means a lot of agencies will just set it at that even though that is far above actual cost).

Clarifies that records held by private entities contracted to do business with the government are public records.

The new law isn't perfect. For example, it exempts university student disciplinary records. But overall, these are great changes. Let's see these spread nationwide.

'Confidentiality has killed children': Opening up juvenile justice

DavidCuillier — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:40:00 GMT

Check out the latest issue of the News Media and the Law, put out by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, where they delve into the secret world of juvenile justice and the importance of openness. The article points out that juvenile justice courts began to open up in the 1990s, and the system has actually been getting more transparent (unlike most other government institutions).

Many folks, including journalists, assume that the identities of juvenile offenders are secret, but in many states that information is public. Journalists quoted in the article say that the openness has improved the system and saved lives.

Check out other good FOI-oriented articles in the online issue, including press rights in Indian country, Obama's attempt to keep records secret, state coalitions for open government, and fights over open meeting laws.

Washington governor asserts "executive privilege" for denying records

DavidCuillier — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:40:00 GMT

Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire, a democrat, is following in the footsteps of George W. Bush by claiming "executive privilege" as the basis for denying a public records request.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a libertarian non-profit group, wanted a bunch of records related to an executive order she issued regarding climate change. Her office withheld dozens of documents, claiming executive privilege and the deliberative process exemption. Well, there is a deliberative process exemption in the state public records law, but no "executive privilege" exemption.

The group appealed and threatened legal action, causing the governor's office to cough up the records. An account of their struggle is posted here. Yet, in a letter an attorney for the governor still claims they can keep records secret because of "executive privilege."

Gads, what happened to her? When she was attorney general she assured the media (I was in the room when she made some of these promises) that she would fight for open government. Then she becomes governor and turns secretive? Attorneys will come up with all sorts of creative ways to keep records secret. But this story goes to show that if you push hard enough and keep at it, you can cut through the B.S. and get the records the public is entitled to.

Identity theft fear threatens child safety in Utah

DavidCuillier — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:11:00 GMT

Here's another case where an irrational fear of identity theft is making the world less safe, for children nonetheless.

The Salt Lake Tribune has been trying to get databases of school employees with date of birth so they can compare them against criminal records to find criminals working with children. The state has had a problem with teachers sexually assaulting students and there appears to be a lack of background checks by districts. The newspaper wants to examine the problem so schools can better protect children from pedophiles.

But school districts refused to give out dates of birth with the names of employees, saying that crooks could use that information to commit identity theft. Poppycock. The reality is (and lots of studies back this up), identity thieves do not get their information from public records, and it takes more than just a date of birth. Also, dates of birth are already floating around out there so making them secret won't help. It will only allow crooks and pedophiles to remain anonymous and keep preying on victims.

According to a Tribune story, the state Records Commission ruled this week that the schools should provide the month and day but not the year. This appears to be an attempt at a compromise, but it's still not good enough. We need to be sure that we have the right John Smiths. The full date of birth should be provided. I hope the newspaper appeals this ruling, for the children's sake!

Eleven public records for fun features

DavidCuillier — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:04:00 GMT

Check out the FOI Toolbox in this month's Quill magazine for 11 public records that make for fun features. Some of the records include:

* U.S. patents (wacky inventors in your hometown)
* Pet licenses (most common breeds and names, and people with lots of pets)
* Expense reports (city council dinner choices and travel perks)
* Agriculture census (trends in bee keepers, maple syrup production, etc.)
* Code enforcement records (residents who do annoying things)
* Claims against government (wacky mishaps, such as an attack peacock)

See more details in the column, and if you have other ideas feel free to let me know at cuillier@email.arizona.edu.

Cruising for records: Data on cruise ship sickness

DavidCuillier — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:12:00 GMT

Check out which cruise ships and cruise lines have the most sickness outbreaks through data provided online by the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC Vessel Sanitation Program allows you to search outbreaks and inspection records by ship or cruise line going back to 1990. You can sort by date, cruise line, ship, and score. You can also see the report and corrective action. A non-government Web site, cruisinghealthy.com, has pulled together the CDC data and put them online in another easily searchable format.

These online records are great for journalists in cruise-ship cities, and for folks thinking of taking a cruise, but they also are a good example of inspection records that government agencies keep. Think of any public or quasi-public places (businesses) that government inspects, then go look at those records (school cafeterias, hotel pools, gas pumps, etc.). A ton of good stories to be had through records!

SDX grant to support FOI road trip 2010

DavidCuillier — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:12:00 GMT

The SDX Foundation approved a newsroom training program budget for SPJ that includes an $8,550 pilot project that might come to a newsroom near you in 2010: Access Across America.

For years we have traveled to newsrooms and chapters individually to conduct training in a variety of areas, including freedom of information (see more about this training program at the Newsroom Training Web site).

For the on-the-road training I will hit the highways and try to visit as many newsrooms and chapters as I can in spring-summer 2010. I'll drive from San Diego to Maine. From Forks, Wash. (dodging vampires), to Miami. And places in between. I'll bring the training to you, including tips for good document-based stories and strategies for getting reluctant officials to hand over public records. I'll post more information as we get the program put together this fall. In the meantime, if you want to be a part of the road trip, send me an e-mail at cuillier@email.arizona.edu and I'll try to get you in the mix (no promises, but we'll do our best!).

Citing law increases response to records request letters

DavidCuillier — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:11:00 GMT

What makes for an effective records request letter? Make sure to cite the law to make it clear you are serious.

In this month's Quill magazine, I discuss results of two experiments I conducted to test the effectiveness of friendly request letters versus legalistic threatening letters. I found that police departments and school districts were more likely to respond to request letters that cited the law and reminded authorities of penalties for noncompliance (based on the Student Press Law Center online form letter). The legalistic letter also resulted in more agencies providing the records, responding faster and even providing lower copy fees. Frankly, the results baffled me - I had always assumed a friendly approach would be most effective (honey vs. vinegar). A few agencies were turned off by the tone of the legalistic letter, so I would be careful using it routinely, especially if you cover a beat and have to deal with the clerks day-to-day. My advice is to always ask in person first, politely and openly. Then if you are blown off, submit a legalistic letter.

Ultimately, these experiments indicate that the law is important, and reminding officials of the law will help move your records request along a little faster.