A Web site, ratemycop.com, started a year ago, allows anyone to anonymously rate individual police officers in their communities. You can find all sorts of interesting comments, such as, “Swaggers like John Wayne but has the muscle of Olive Oil. Causes hate and discontent everywhere she goes.” And worse, similar to comments posted at ratemyprofessors.com or pickaprof.com. But how credible are these complaints?

Instead, go to government documents to find bad cops (and profs). Request internal investigation reports or disciplinary records regarding government employees. Sift through claims against agencies and lawsuits (I found patterns of excessive force by a few officers through analyzing claims and lawsuits, which are both public records). Some agencies will want to hide behind privacy laws, and in some states the courts have upheld the privacy rights for government employees’ disciplinary records. But more and more, I’m seeing courts rule in favor of requesters. They see the importance of the government transparency. We pay these people’s salaries so we should know if they are doing bad things or not. The public supports access to those records.

Every fall when a new crop of student leaders start meeting at universities we run into violations of open meeting laws, usually out of ignorance not arrogance, and it’s up to student journalists to help educate student leaders to the law. The Daily Campus at the University of Connecticut reported meeting violations by the student government board, and the student leaders acknowledged they were unaware of the law and will follow the law in the future. Sometimes that’s all it takes.

A tip for writing about these issues: Posted online comments in response to The Daily Campus’ story attacked the newspaper for the story, saying it is unethical for the newspaper to say the student body violated the state open meeting law. Who are a bunch of student journalists to say they broke the law? That’s a good point. When writing about these violations, a quick call to FOI experts in the state or nationally will help by verifying that they did indeed break the law and provide authoritative sourcing. Get FOI experts in your phone directory. Some possibilities (see more thoughts in my FOI Toolbox column in the June/July Quill magazine, p. 63):

• Coalitions for open government in your state (see national listing at the National Freedom of Information Coalition, http://www.nfoic.org/membership/members.html (e.g., Connecticut Foundation for Open Government).
• A state public records ombudsman or FOI commission. About half the states have some sort of FOI mediation outlet, either in attorney general offices or separately. Connecticut happens to have its own FOI Commission (http://www.state.ct.us/foi/) to mediate disputes.
• State press associations know these issues well, http://www.shgresources.com/resources/newspapers/associations/
• SPJ Sunshine Chair in your state (http://www.spj.org/sunshine-chairs.asp), or SPJ FOI Committee members, or I would be happy to comment (cuillier@email.arizona.edu, 520-626-9694).
• Student Press Law Center has lawyers on staff to answer questions.
• Call your local newspaper and ask who their attorney is. Contact that attorney, who is likely to be an expert in this area. The attorney won’t provide legal advice, but many are more than happy to give their expert opinion for a story.
• Find who at your university or another university in the state is an expert in these areas. Often there is a journalism prof who teaches media law who can speak to the issue.
• Find someone at the state association for cities or counties who knows the issue well. Then it isn’t a “media” expert saying the government screwed up. It’s a government expert saying the government screwed up.

Congratulations to journalism students at Eastern Kentucky University for getting access to more complete university police reports. The Kentucky attorney general issued an opinion siding with the student newspaper, the Progress, saying the university police department was misusing Kentucky law by over-censoring police reports. It’s pretty typical for police to redact too much from police reports, but most state laws require police to demonstrate that the secrecy is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or privacy of individuals.

If police are redacting reports willy-nilly, call them on it. Make them justify every blotted out word or line. If they claim they don’t have to, then get your state attorney general to issue an opinion.

Kudos to journalism students at Quinnipiac University for standing against a heavy-handed administration by leaving the school paper and starting their own independent news Web site, the Quad News, as reported through SPJ member news this week.

Here’s what the students were up against, according to FIRE’s The Torch: Quinnipiac President John Lahey had prohibited the student paper, the Quinnipiac Chronicle, from posting news online before the print publication came out. The president had required all media to go through the university PR office if they wanted to interview anyone. The administration also threatened to fire the student editor after he questioned the online policies, and told the public that student leaders (such as the editor) are “expected to generally be supportive of university policies.” The administration also took over final hiring decisions of the newspaper’s leadership. Ironically, and sadly, the masthead of the Quinnipiac Chronicle states that it is “The independent student newspaper at Quinnpiac University.” Lahey is out of touch with the reality of today’s media, the basic principles of American democracy, and is damaging these students’ education. Unfortunately, this sort of totalitarian anti-American attitude toward free speech and the press is all too common among university leaders, particularly at private universities. They just don’t get it.

But here’s the good news. Twenty students withdrew their applications to work at the paper and instead started up their own news Web site with the help from the Connecticut chapter of SPJ. The Web site looks great, and it’s actually covering news important to the student body. The mouthpiece paper of the university leads with puff features about professor awards. The Quad News instead leads with its report from the Democratic National Convention, a story about the university’s overcrowded rec center, and the continuation of road construction on campus. Contrasting the content of both Web sites really shows how the threat of censorship and retribution impacts news the public receives. If you are a high school or college journalist working under an oppressive administration, contact your local SPJ chapter and see if you can start your own independent Web site to do good journalism, not school public relations.

The Arkansas Times writes about the state’s Department of Human Services keeping secret basic details about the death of four children kept in foster care under the agency’s responsibility. The agency hides behind a state law that says information regarding ongoing investigations can be kept secret. Yet, case law in the state says that some information in pending investigations should be public, such as basic information from police reports. When it comes down to it, the agency’s secrecy defies common sense and folks in Arkansas should use that to shed light on an agency that is responsible for thousands of children.

The solution? The Times and other newspapers should sue and also work to change the law. It worked in Arizona last year. The Arizona Daily Star and Arizona Republic investigated a series of child deaths to find bungling in Child Protective Services. At the time the state also hid behind state law to supposedly protect people’s privacy, but in reality they were out to hide massive problems in their agency. Both papers sued the state over records involving child deaths and they won. Then the Legislature approved a new law this year specifically making the case files public when a child dies in the care of CPS. It wasn’t that difficult garnering public support given the atrocities some children face and the need for a strong system to protect them. Last week a federal audit of CPS showed massive failings in the system. Don’t let these folks hide problems behind “privacy.” Fight for openness. Fight for the children!

Wow, this one rates in my top three wacky denials. According to an Argus-Press (Owosso, Mich.) story, the county sheriff denied the newspaper’s public records request and then included a bill for $10 to mail the one-page denial letter. Zoinks! Like most state public records laws, agencies in Michigan are allowed to charge for the cost of copying records, but no state I have ever heard of allows an agency to charge someone just for asking for a record, or for being denied records. That’s a slap in the face. Makes you wonder why a county’s top law enforcement officer doesn’t understand (or follow) the law!

The city of Richland, Miss., is gouging the public for public records copies and fortunately the Clarion Ledger called them on it in a recent story. The news story lists the outrageous charges for copies, including $20 for a copy of a police incident report. Ironically, the city increased fees in response to new state laws that were intended to make public records more easily accessible. The problem here is the law allows agencies to charge for the cost of searching, reviewing and duplicating records. The city claims it costs $20 in staff time to search, duplicate and copy a police incident report. Sounds bogus to me. If an agency makes such a claim demand to see how the charges are calculated. Does it take a clerk an hour or two to find and copy an incident report? If so, does that point to inefficiencies in the city’s record keeping? To put it in perspective, think about how much Kinko’s charges you to make a copy – 8 cents a page. And Kinko’s, unlike a city, is out to make a profit. The long-term solution is to change the law to prohibit agencies from charging for search and review time. Some states allow agencies to charge for the actual copying only (paper and toner). That usually reduces some of the gouging.

Filed under the “No Surprises Here” drawer, top Bush officials are recommending that the president veto the federal shield law if passed by the Senate this fall. The Free Flow of Information Act may come up for a vote following the current recess, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said Friday that the president should veto the bill if it is passed, according to an AP story. The advisers claim that a media shield law would harm national security and encourage more leaks of classified information. An ironic claim, given previous strategic leaks of classified information by Bush advisers, including the outing of a CIA spy. Their real concern, of course, is the continued leaks of embarrassing information that the public needs to know (e.g., government listening in on Americans’ phone calls, reading e-mails, holding and torturing prisoners in foreign prisons, etc.). With any luck, enough senators will see the need for a federal shield law that they will have enough votes to override a veto. Stay tuned!

You know the government is too secretive when government oversight committees can’t get information. Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., want the president to be more forthcoming about interrogation techniques, calling today for the White House to make public documents and memos regarding detention and torture of prisoners, according to a Leahy press release. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been struggling for years to get information from the Department of Justice, but the executive branch has provided only a limited number of documents, most redacted.

A lot of people are content to allow the president and government agencies hide information for “national security” purposes on the assumption that proper oversight in government prevents abuses of that power. People assume our system of checks and balances allows Congress to make sure the president doesn’t become a king or despot. Yet, as we see again and again, that oversight is hampered. Citizens – and journalists – should be alarmed by this lack of oversight and transparency.

Some of the best sources of background information on complicated subjects can be found in reports to Congress. While some reports may be directed toward a certain conclusion, most are informational and helpful in understanding the basics and identifying sources. Take for example the Russia-Georgia conflict. News reports are all over the map on who is to blame, but a succinct report issued Aug. 13 for Congress provides historical context that shows the complexity of the dispute (check out a copy posted at the Federation of American Scientists Web site). So tap into government reports through Congressional Research Service and other agencies that gather and disseminate information, obstensibly for elected leaders to make better informed decisions.