Congressional Members Inauguration Perks Undisclosed

It's amazing the perks offered to members of Congress. 

The high-priced dinners, trips to exotic beaches funded by lobbyists, travel on private corporate jets. But, there are other perks that seem less, well, should we say, corrupt?

One perk offered to members of Congress are the hundreds of presidential inauguration tickets given to them. The tickets are meant to be distributed to constituents, and probably some are, but questions arise about how many of the tickets (being hawked on E-bay right now for thousands of dollars a piece) are passed out by lawmakers to political donors, VIPs and personal friends who live outside their district or state. 

We, as the general public will never know. 

Because no federal law forced lawmakers to disclose who they gave their inauguration tickets too, they, in traditional political fashion, don't disclose. In my home state of Colorado, not a single congressional member has offered a list of who they lavished their hundreds of tickets to.

And don't think they haven't been asked. 

The Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain News have both requested a listing of who each congressional member gave tickets to. Not a single member has fulfilled the requests. One member, newly-elected multi-millionaire Rep. Jared Polis, said he doesn't want to violate the privacy of the people he gave his tickets to. 

Or, better stated, he doesn't want the public to know how many of the tickets meant for constituents in his district were given to lobbyists, campaign fundraisers and his personal friends and family who live outside of Colorado. 

But, Polis isn't the only one. All of Colorado's congressional members, and I would imagine most of those from other states, are in the same nondisclosure boat. 

The First Amendment Fan is happy the Post and the News inquired about the tickets. They are doing their part to shed sunlight on government and to practice First Amendment journalism. Unfortunately, though, this issue hasn't become a bigger story around the country. If newspapers and other journalists were interested in keeping the feet of elected officials to the fire then they should all be asking the same question of their local lawmakers. 

And, when those lawmakers predictably refuse to answer, they should publish that on the front page of their Web site, newspaper or television broadcast. If enough people call their congressional members to complain about the lack of transparency, things might change. 

They might not, too. But, if the public doesn't know the truth about the lack of truth from Congress then nothing will change. 

First Amendment Headlines for January 16, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Some Ask if Bailout is Unconstitutional - New York Times
- U.S. Issues Scathing Report on Immigrant Who Died in Detention - New York Times
- Medtronic Paid Researcher More than $20 Million - Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required)
- AIG Discloses $150 Million More in Retention Pay - Bloomberg
- 7 States Sue Government over U.S. Abortion Rule - New York Times

Federal Judge Blasts Bush for Lost Emails

A federal judge said the Bush Administration has failed to adequately safeguard electronic messages that should be a part of the public record, according to a ruling out today. 

First Amendment advocates have long had frustration over the Bush Administration's apparent willingness to withhold internal communications and documents from the National Archives claiming executive privilege and privacy rights. 

As First Amendment Fan has documented in the past, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a court filing that his official White House records are private and he alone will determine what records will be given to the National Archive and which will not.

Unfortunately for First Amendment advocates and journalists alike, many of the "lost" emails and other electronic documents hidden away in unknown White House file cabinets will probably never been made available to the public. 

An excerpt from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — A federal court tore into the Bush White House today over the issue of millions of apparently missing e-mails, saying the administration had failed in its obligation to safeguard all electronic messages.

In a four-page opinion, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola said the White House was ignoring court instructions to search a full range of locations for all electronic messages that may be missing.

The Executive Office of the President, Facciola said, was limiting its search to offices subject to the requirements of the Federal Records Act, while sidestepping offices subject to the preservation requirements of the Presidential Records Act.

There is a profound societal interest as well as a legal obligation to preserve all records and "the importance of preserving the e-mails cannot be exaggerated," Facciola wrote.

The Bush White House has represented to the court that no records created in an office covered by the Presidential Records Act are transmitted to offices covered by the Federal Records Act. But there is no factual record on which to base that conclusion, said Facciola.

He ordered the EOP to conduct a search of all offices regardless of which law covers a White House office, saying the issues in the case must be dealt with in "true emergency conditions" because there are just two business days remaining before the Bush administration ends.

"The records at issue are not paper records that can be stored, but electronically stored information that can be deleted with a keystroke," Facciola wrote. "Additionally, I have no way of knowing what happens to computers and to hard drives in them when one administration replaces another."

Facciola's opinion raises questions about the completeness of the Bush administration e-mail search. The Justice Department says the government has finished a search that entailed spending more than $10 million to locate 14 million e-mails.

First Amendment Headlines for January 15, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Former Investment Officer Alleges Pay-to-Play in Gov. Richardson Administration - New Mexico Independent
- After the Oil Boom, a Gusher of investment-Fraud Cases - Wall Street Journal (pay subscription required)
- Fredie, Fannie Force Borrowers to Waive Legal Rights - Washington Independent
- Bush Official Torture Admission Changes Game - Slate
- Breadth of Proposed Stimulus Mirrors U.S. Budget - ProPublica

First Amendment Headlines for January 13, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- AP Exclusive: Blago Got $80K from Road Builders - Associated Press
- NY Governor's Secretive Senate Process May Have Broken NY Law - Associated Press
- Fee to Bill Clinton Raises Questions of Speech Never Given - The Los Angeles Times
- Who's Running TARP? - TPMMuckraker
- Clinton Acted on Concerns of Husband's Donors - Associated Press

The Loss of Another Two Newspaper Town

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the loss of Denver, Colo. (my hometown) as a two newspaper town after news broke that The Rocky Mountain News will likely close in coming months. In that post I detailed in great depth why First Amendment, watchdog reporting would likely suffer if the News is forced to close. 

Well, only a couple of weeks later, the newspaper world was shocked yet again by another closure announcement, this time in Seattle. Hearst, the parent company of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, told newsroom employees on Friday that it will likely shutter the newspaper in 60 days if a buyer is not found, ceasing operation of the state's oldest publication. 

Many people in the know had long thought that the P-I would buy out its competitor the Seattle Times, but very few believed the rainy city would remain a two newspaper town. The P-I is a terrific newspaper and one that I have often used in my First Amendment journalism searches. It's unfortunate that so many talented journalists will soon be thrown into a market that cannot absorb them. 

On a larger scale, it's mostly unfortunate that yet another town will be reduced to one newspaper and suffer the inevitable loss of quality journalism that accompanies that reality.

 

First Amendment Reporting: What can reporters, editors do?

What can reporters do?

During a round of drinks with a number of Colorado Capitol press corps colleagues last week, the question of how journalists can continue quality First Amendment journalism amid newsroom layoffs, cutbacks and larger work loads was asked. 

"How can we be expected to do that level of work when we are being asked to pump out more stories, instant online news updates, take photos and blog every day?" 

It's true. Reporters are being asked to do more with fewer resources and less time than ever before. But, after thinking about this conversation (and so many others just like it) I came to believe that more work and less time shouldn't be an excuse for reporters and editors to stop practicing the democratic responsibility of First Amendment, watchdog reporting. 

First, the more watchdog journalism a community reads in its local paper the more respect it will give to the publication. I understand respect doesn't necessarily equate to more advertising or even subscriptions, but it does count for something. Sources will open up more and people in the know will feel safer in making sure the newspaper is in the know. 

Second, it should make the reporter(s) feel good to know he/she is doing the job. So, what can overworked, underpaid reporters do? 

Here is a quick list of three steps any reporter can add to their work week in order to produce more watchdog journalism but that won't take too much of their valuable time either:

- File more open records requests. Not everything has to be done in the form of a FOIA, of course. Often times reporters can gain information simply by asking for it. But, it's essential that reporters use the public documents in order to find stories. The best stories are found not through canned press releases but by digging into the public documents of a school district or city government. Sometimes, just by filing the open records request a reporter will stumble onto a hidden nugget. And, in some instances, a government staffer might lead the reporter to another document related to the original request but that offers better insight into the subject at hand. 

- Ask for copies of audits.  There is important information buried in the pages of government audits. Any reporter covering a beat, whether schools, city or state government, or the FAA, should ask officials for copies of all of audits performed in the last 12 months. Most audits contain an executive summary which summarizes the bulk of the information into a couple of pages and often will highlight the inconsistencies or problem areas the auditor found. This practice doesn't take much effort but can lead to good watchdog stories. 

- Scrutinize consent agendas. It's amazing how often the best news items from a board meeting or a city council hearing are hidden away in the consent agenda. Sometimes government employees place important fee or tax increases onto the consent agenda because they know the elected officials will not raise an eyebrow. If it passes on consent, there is no public discussion on the item, or even an individual vote by lawmakers. Most journalists will say that "Everyone knows to check consent agendas" but you would be surprised how many don't. 

First Amendment Headlines for January 12, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Watchdog Groups Eyes Bush Administration for Revolving Door - Citizens for Ethics in Government
- Massachusetts Official's Connections With Gaming Pact Questioned - The Boston Globe
- Texas Law Lets Hospitals Hide Problems - The Dallas Morning News
- U.S. Officials Failed to Examine Bombing Suspect with Dire Results - Newsweek
- Democrats Look for Ways to Undo Last Minute Bush Rules - New York Times
- Failed Oversight of Security in Iraq: State Dept. May Have Violated Rules - The Washington Post

Fight for elected officials' emails continues

A recent ruling by a Missouri judge this week will force outgoing Gov. Matt Blunt to give 60,000 pages of e-mail records to investigators but did not specify if his office broke open records laws by deleting some emails that critics say should be a part of the public record.

From the Associated Press:

"A bipartisan pair of court-appointed assistant attorneys general said at a Jan. 5 hearing that they believed Blunt's office broke Missouri law by deleting e-mails that should have been saved as public records.

"Clearly, based upon the evidence that was presented, there were violations" of the document-retention and public-records laws, one of those attorneys, former Democratic Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell, said after a court hearing.

But Maxwell and Republican attorney Louis Leonatti both said it would have been almost impossible to prove Blunt's office committed a knowing and purposeful violation, which are required elements under Missouri law for imposing civil fines.

That's because they said Blunt and his top deputies were relying on in-house legal advice — albeit wrong — when they asserted in 2007 that e-mails were not public records and did not have to be kept.

Leonatti said there was nothing to indicate any criminal conduct occurred, and he praised Blunt's former legal counsel, Henry Herschel, for eventually correcting his wrong interpretation of public-records laws.

The on-going court case could help put an end to the controversy that has followed Blunt for almost two years but will probably bring more uncertainty to First Amendment advocates who argue all email and cell phone records of elected officials conducting the people's business should be made public.

A similar battle over cell phone records is playing out in many states across the country including in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and in Colorado.

Under Missouri law, e-mails sent and received by elected officials can be considered public and are subject to open-records laws, but an ongoing debate on the length of time a government record must be kept is determined on a case-by-case basis and is subject to state employee judgement.

It will be important for First Amendment fans and the journalism industry to continue fighting this battle and others like it. As technology brings forth many new forms of communication, from cell phones to email to Twitter accounts, the nation's open records laws are becoming more outdated by the year.

First Amendment Headlines for January 07, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- The SEC Watchdog Who Missed Madoff - The New York Post
- Ex-Detroit Mayoral Aide Gets 120-Jail Sentence - Associated Press
- Tax Havens: The Hidden Hand in the Financial Crisis - American News Project
- LAPD Tried to Reverse Coroner's Verdict in Girl's Death - Los Angeles Times
- Higher Co-Pays Stopping Seniors From Receiving Mental Health Care - The New York Times
- Democrats Prepare Bills to Combat Midnight Regulations - ProPublica.com

First Amendment Headlines for January 05, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- A Donor's Gift Soon Followed Clinton's Help - New York Times
- Rengel Pushed For a Donation; Insurer Pushed For a Tax Cut - New York Times
- U.S. Forest Policy is Set to Change, Aiding Developers - Washington Post
- Texans Suffer as Special Interests Gain Influence - Dallas Morning News
- Schwarzenegger Aide's Ties to Firm Raise Questions - LA Times
- White House Connections Speed Clemency Requests - New York Times
- Many California Health Workers Not Checked for Criminal Past - ProPubica.com
- Government Transparency Takes a Hit: Agencies' midnight rule changes may make it harder for FOIA requesters - Columbia Journalism Review

Gannett Blog continues First Amendment duty

As I have noted before, there are some bloggers in today's new age of journalism who are doing good First Amendment journalism. Case in point is the former USA Today reporter Jim Hopkins who publishes Gannett Blog. 

Hopkins started Gannett Blog anonymously while still employed at the USA Today, which is owned by Gannett, but has since come out from the shadows after he took a buyout in January of 2008. Since his departure, Hopkins has served as a watchdog over Gannett and provided employees with a place to air concerns, frustrations and sometimes mean-spirited remarks about their company. There is some debate about how much of the old journalistic standards Hopkins has left in the wake with his blog, as he allows people to post defaming remarks about individuals anonymously on his comments section, but there is no doubt that his is one of the best industry blogs online. 

Recently, Hopkins began scrutinizing former Gannett CEO Al Neuharth who founded the Freedom Forum after retiring from the company. By searching more than 9,000 pages of IRS tax returns filed by the Freedom Forum, a non-profit with a mission to serve journalism and the First Amendment, Hopkins reveals many questionable donations including money given to an adoption agency run by Neuharth's wife. 

From Gannett Blog:

Public documents show Freedom Forum in Washington, D.C., made $65,700 in donations to Home At Last between 2000 and 2007. This was when the private foundation should have been reining in its famously undisciplined spending. After all, administrators were about to tap the endowment, an investment fund that helps pay salaries and other expenses, in order to build a new home for the foundation's signature project -- a museum about news called the Newseum.

Freedom Forum disclosed the gifts in public Internal Revenue Service documents that do not explain why a journalism foundation would underwrite an adoption agency. The documents certainly don't disclose one likely reason: Fornes is the wife of Freedom Forum's multimillionaire founder, Al Neuharth (left).

The Home At Last grants are among hundreds of gifts Freedom Forum made in 2000-2007 to non-profits that seem to share little in common with the foundation's mission, a Gannett Blog review of more than 9,000 pages of IRS documents found. In other cases, money went to causes that appeared to benefit foundation officials more than the foundation itself. For example, Freedom Forum has given:

$15,000 to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, a leading political lobby.

$34,500 to the United States Equestrian Team in Gladstone, N.J., to promote competitive horseback riding events.

$23,000 to the 30-year-old Whale Museum, housed in a former Odd Fellows fraternal hall on an island near Seattle.

$35,500 to the Montessori Parent Organization in Indian Harbour Beach, Fla.

$46,500 to Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy in Melbourne, Fla.

$5 million to the University of Mississippi for a journalism center not honoring Gannett or the foundation -- but the foundation’s chairman and CEO, Charles Overby, an Ole Miss grad, and long-time Neuharth aide.

Judges bar access to elected official cell phones

In a ruling this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said a local newspaper cannot view all of the records of two Pittsburgh City Council members' taxpayer-funded cell phones, including call logs and text messages. 

In an unanimous ruling, the Court said the lawmakers have a right to privacy despite using the city-funded phones for personal and political purposes. The case was brought to court by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in 2003 after it sought records for the city-owned cell phones. The newspaper wanted to know which calls were personal in nature and if the city council members reimbursed taxpayers for the use. 

“Appellants have failed to set forth any cogent argument that the disclosure of the telephone numbers ... would serve a strong public function,” Justice Seamus McCaffery wrote in the majority opinion.

A similar ruling in May by a judge in Massachusetts barred a local newspaper from viewing the phone records of elected officials using city-owned cell phones, some of which racked up monthly bills of $400 or more.  

The struggle for the public's right to know is playing out across the country. In Colorado, The Denver Post is suing Gov. Bill Ritter for 19 months of cell phone records his office has refused to release. In New Jersey, a city councilwoman recently won the right to review the records of all city-owned cell phones in her bid to uncover city employees using government property for personal use. 

The public's access to government cell phone records has been instrumental in recent years and the latest rulings could have a very negative impact on a newspaper's ability to uncover hidden truths about elected officials. Just this year, the extramarital affairs of the former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick were exposed by the Detroit Free Press after the newspaper obtained text messages from the mayor's cell phone.

First Amendment Headlines for Dec. 24, 2008

Editors note: As much as I would like to see newspapers keep published content available for eternity in the digital archive of history (it is the 21st Century and all) I cannot guarantee all links posted in Headlines will remain active.

- Corporate Sponsors Pay for Inauguration Parties - USA Today
- Obama Releases Report on Blago Contracts - The Associated Press
- SEC Inaction Helped Fuel Madoff Scheme - Financial Times (Paid subscription required)
- Despite Millions in Surplus Dollars, MD. Hospitals Sue for Fees - Baltimore Sun
- Bush Pardons Housing Scammer - Politico
- Group Sues Over Mountaintop Mining - The Associated Press
- Gannett Investigation into CEO Gift Giving Continues - Jim Hopkins' Gannett Blog

Science community angry at CNN

An interesting letter was penned to CNN editors this week in protest over the network's decision to dismantle its entire science team earlier this month. Jointly signed by the presidents of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists, the letter nails the network for being short-sided. 

It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Walton and Mr. Klein,

We are writing on behalf of several national and international science journalism organizations to express our strong concern about CNN’s shortsighted decision to cut its science, technology and environment unit in one fell swoop. In wielding this ax, your network has lost an experienced and highly regarded group of science journalists at a time when science coverage could not be more important in our national and international discourse.

The environment, energy technology, space exploration, and biotechnology are crucial ongoing stories that will have growing prominence as a new American president takes office and nations confront a wide range of science-based global issues. As the impacts of climate change intensify, shows like “Planet in Peril” cannot make up for informed daily coverage of this important issue and other science topics in the public eye. As with political and policy reporting, it is important that the underlying science be covered by journalists with the skills and knowledge to sort out competing claims.

Concerned as we are about the dismissal of our colleagues—including the award-winning science reporter Miles O’Brien in New York; Peter Dykstra, head of CNN’s science unit in Atlanta; and five other science producers there—this letter is not about individual journalists. Rather, the wholesale dismantling of the science unit calls into question CNN’s commitment to bringing the most informative science news to the general public, including the science-minded younger audience. If CNN wants to be truly international, it will be at odds with the trend toward increased science coverage in many parts of the world.

It is difficult for us to imagine why CNN, which has earned a justifiably strong reputation for its science journalism in the past, has opted to widen the gap in science coverage rather than strive to fill it. We would hope that you would reconsider your decision and reassemble a cadre of well-trained science journalists that would enable you to expand unfolding science news and in-depth coverage, not shrink it.

Your action is an unfortunate symbol of recent widespread cutbacks in specialty science journalism. Our groups will continue to push for more science coverage by the major media and to do our part to promote the highest possible professional standards for communicating complex science-based issues across the spectrum. We plan to publicize this letter as widely as possible to encourage further discussion of the future of science journalism. Thanks for your attention.

Now, I am all for science journalism. I subscribe to National Geographic, Wired and find articles about NASA and space exploration especially interesting. I hope that good work continues. But, I take issue with the assumption that CNN, an international news network, has a duty to provide science writing to readers and viewers. 

CNN, like most other journalistic enterprises today, is losing money. Although the Internet has not hurt the network cable channels in the same way it has the newspaper industry, it's still slicing into bone. After all, the expensive salaries of Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer and Larry King don't come cheap. Neither do the travel expenses the network incurs covering every major world event that unfolds. 

As traditional newspapers continue to erode, democracy will become more dependent on the nation's largest news outlets, both in print and broadcast, to step up their First Amendment reporting. It's not unconceivable that in the next five or 10 years investigations into government and business that are essential to our democracy will only be afforded by CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News and the nation's largest newspapers. If CNN needs to cut its science department to better ensure First Amendment reporting continues then I am alright with that. Other than reporting on the Bush administration's attempts to edit out data confirming global warming from federal documents I don't see science writing as fulfilling journalism's First Amendment duty. 

Now, if CNN uses the money it saves from this latest move to produce more "journalism" from the same ilk as Dateline NBC's Chris Hansen's "To Catch a Predator" series I will be the first one to scream in protest and write another donation check to National Geographic.