Archive for the ‘Freedom of Information’ Category


Need FOIA help?

Filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but ran into a few bumps? The Society of Professional Journalists wants to help.

We know the process can be challenging, frustrating and sometimes confusing. We also know sometimes your only option is to obtain services from an attorney. Now, help from a FOIA attorney is just an email away. Send the following information to foia@spj.org:

  • Your name
  • Your best contact information
  • Copy of your original FOIA request
  • Current status of your request
  • How we can help

Once you send the email, SPJ leaders will work with FOIA attorneys to connect you with a FOIA expert and resources to help.

The FOIA is a cornerstone of openness in our government; it compels federal agencies to yield millions of documents relating to government operations and performance. News organizations, scholars, and public interest groups use the FOIA to report information significant to public health and safety, and good governance.

SPJ hopes that by offering this resource, more journalists will be given the assistance they need to continue working as government watchdogs.

Lynn Walsh is a freelance journalist, creating content focused on government accountability, public access to information and freedom of expression issues. She’s also helping to rebuild trust between newsrooms and the public through the Trusting News ProjectFollow her on Twitter or send her an email to collaborate on a possible project.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Yes, filing a lot of FOIA requests is normal and good reporting

Aurora, Illinois Police Chief Kristen Ziman recently wrote on her blog:

“If reputable and respected journalists respond and tell me that it is perfectly normal to file FOIA requests for the sake of filing, then I will stand corrected.”

And later:

“But I do believe FOIA requests should be strategic and not just a fishing expedition. That is where the disconnect seems to be.”

Her post was in response to criticism she received over a Facebook post in which she called out a local reporter for filing a lot of FOIA requests, which she characterized as a fishing expedition.

The local newspaper the Beacon-News had been seeking the dash cam footage and internal documents related to a 2016 traffic stop, where a man committed suicide after exchanging gunshots with an Aurora Police officer, according to reports. The police department released the footage on the Facebook post months after the FOIA request was made and the Illinois Attorney General’s office intervened.

Check out the Beacon- News’ coverage of its FOIA battle and Chief Ziman’s Facebook post here

Here’s SPJ’s Freedom of Information Committee Chair Danielle McLean’s response to Chief Ziman’s question of whether filing FOIA requests for the sake of filing FOIA requests is normal:

Dear. Chief Ziman,

In response to your question, whether it is normal for reporters to file FOIA requests for the sake of filing, the answer is yes and is a practice that is highly encouraged. It is critical for reporters to request records routinely to learn about government functions, even if the request doesn’t entail a specific record for a specific story.

For instance, reporters often put in routine requests for public officials’ emails to stay informed about their communications, police logs to monitor police activity and arrests, minutes of public meetings that had previously entered into executive session to understand decisions and discussions that occurred behind closed doors, and campaign filings to see who may be bankrolling a politician’s campaign.

There are other examples where reporters request records that might appear as “fishing” expeditions, such as requests for databases, budgets, and investigation reports. But in reality this type of activity isn’t actually fishing – it’s observing government operations. It’s seeing what the government is up to, which is the fundamental premise behind FOIA and state public record laws, as reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sincerely,
Danielle McLean
Chair
Freedom of Information Committee
Society of Professional Journalists

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Truth is Freedom

There’s little more patriotic than seeking truth and reporting it.

The future of FOIA—hell, the future of press access of any kind—may seem murky. But hasn’t that always been the case? Lest we forget, Obama’s administration was rough on access in its own way. Acts like FOIA don’t just pass at the fancy of politicians. They are born of strife, raised by dissent, matured by demands.

But we—and FOIA—are still here. The battle to defend access and the press is fought on many fronts. Some of them send back good news. Some bad. But this week, squeezed in among much smarter messages and write-ups and op-eds from men and women much wiser than me, I want to focus on a front I believe is underestimated: People give a shit about us and about journalism again.

And sure, (the President and) people are pissed at us. But it’s much easier to confront anger than it is indifference (ask anyone in any relationship, romantic, professional, or otherwise). I’d choose an accusatory, foaming mouth, fake-news-propaganda-illuminati finger from a reader over the apathy of a non reader anyday.

The onus is on us, of course, to gently point that finger down toward the copy, and repeat the truth (as best we know it). And repeat it. And repeat it. And repeat. Again. Again. Again. Truth tends to prove a monumental value to citizens of any country, even if alt facts momentarily distract some of them.

Americans know that journalism—solid, investigative, costly, subscription/ad/donation-based, unapologetic journalism—is the only way this democracy survives. Truth is freedom because lies enable enslavement. A dark government will master its people while an illuminated government usually fails at the endeavor.

Press freedoms and unhindered channels of access may come and go, but people will always want to know how the government is handling its part of the deal, the tried and tested taxation-for-representation deal. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’ll stay.

I’m not arguing FOIA fighters should sheathe their swords, or that any journos should stop pushing or caring or spitting or scuffling. On the contrary, it’s that fight I’m counting on in my optimism. The fight itself will enable its own survival. The struggle will save the long sinking institution. Its pulse will beat stronger, its blood will flow freer, its beams will burn brighter.

So to family and friends and colleagues who have accosted me recently with the question/statement what should the media do now? I answer: The same damn thing we do every day: Commit acts of journalism.

We’re not here to seek a world in which people blindly trust the media. We don’t want that world. We want readers who question everything, especially information. That’s why we attribute and prove, explain why a source is anonymous, link to documents, submit FOIA requests. We should earn trust with every story, with every line.

Journalism isn’t about arriving at absolutes—it’s about the everlasting journey towards them. Again. And again. And again. Like captains exploiting the North Star, journalists should always reach toward truth longingly, knowing full well it’ll never actually rest within their grasp.

This Sunshine Week and in all the weeks and months and years ahead, keep shining, journos. (Most of) you are doing great, and (most of) the country is grateful for it, even if (some of) it’s being an asshole right now.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

PIO Censorship in the Era of Trump

President Trump has already labeled major press outlets the “fake news media” and the “enemy of the people.” His administration has blocked major news outlets from a briefing because it didn’t like what they published.

With that in mind, the public should understand “censorship by PIO” at the federal level: For years, in many federal agencies, staff members have been prohibited from communicating with any journalist without notifying the authorities, usually the public information officers. And they often are unable to talk without PIO guards actively monitoring them.

Now, conversations will be approved or blocked by people appointed by the Trump Administration, some of them political operatives.

The information about the “administrative state” that impacts our lives constantly is under these controls. They also cover much of the data through which we understand our world and our lives.

In January, according to the Washington Post: “Trump called the government’s job numbers ‘phony.’ What happens now that he is in charge of them?”

Some of us may feel less comfortable with Trump people controlling this information flow. But actually a surge in these controls has been building in the federal government and through the U.S. culture for two decades or more.

In many entities, public and private, federal, state, and local those in power decree that no one will talk to journalists without notifying the PIO. Congressional offices even have the restrictions.

They are convenient for bosses. Under that oversight staff people are unlikely to talk about all the stuff that’s always there, outside of the official story.

Beyond that, PIOs often monitor the conversations and tell staff people what they may or may not discuss. Frequently agencies and offices delay contacts or block them altogether. An article on the Association of Health Care Journalists website, advising journalists about dealing with the Department of Health and Human Services, says, “Reporters rarely get to interview administration officials…”

Remember, those HHS people journalists can’t talk to are at the hub of information flow on what works and doesn’t with Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Or they know whether there are other perspectives on the numbers the agency publishes. Not to speak of the understanding about food and drugs, infectious disease, and medical and health policy research. Many of them could quickly stun us with the education they could give, if they were not gagged.

Another fact that gives pause is these restraints are just for journalists. There are no special rules or offices to stop staff people from having fluid communication with lobbyists, special interest groups, contractors, people with a lot of money, etc.

Fifty-three journalism and open government groups wrote to President Obama asking him to lift the mandate that PIOs be notified of contacts and the related restrictions in federal agencies. We met with people in the White House in 2015 to leave that message for the President. A year ago we pleaded in an editorial that Obama not leave these constraints in place, given the authoritarian rhetoric on the campaign trail and the fact no one can know how these controls will be used in one year or 20 years.

We wonder how former Obama officials feel now about their medications, given that FDA officials can’t talk without Trump controls.

But is it ever even rational to just believe staff people who are under such coercion?

Some journalists –- given our proclivity for believing we always get the story — profess to not be concerned about the PIO controls, saying people on the inside will leak. But do we have any sense of how often that happens? Do we have a 75-percent perspective on an entire agency, or a 2-percent? Nobody leaked when EPA staff people knew that kids in Flint were drinking lead in water or when CDC had sloppy practices in handling bad bugs.

Meantime, we have much more to worry about than just the gagged feds. In surveys sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists, over half of political and general assignment reporters around the country said their interviews must be approved at least most of the time. Seventy-eight percent said the public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers imposed on reporting and 73 percent said the controls are getting tighter.

Education and science reporters cited similar controls.

Perhaps most chillingly, 56 percent of police reporters said they can never or rarely interview police officers without involving a PIO.

Almost 80 percent of police PIOs said they felt it was necessary to supervise or otherwise monitor interviews with police officers. Asked why, some PIOs said things like: “To ensure that the interviews stay within the parameters that we want.”

However, people in power characterize it, censorship is a moral monstrosity. It leaves people on the inside to control information with their own ideas and motivations. It debilitates all of us with a lack of understanding or, just as bad, skewed information. It takes away trust in our systems. It puts democracy itself in question.

Understandably in shock at President Trump’s attacks on the press, some feel these PIO controls are not a primary priority. Actually, this era makes it clearer than ever why we don’t need to leave these networks of controls to people in power.


Kathryn Foxhall, currently a freelance reporter, has written on health and health policy in Washington, D.C., for over 40 years, including 14 years as editor of the newspaper of the American Public Health Association. Email her at kfoxhall@verizon.net.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

If You Sue Trump, This DC Lawyer Will Help You For Free

donald_j-_trump_at_marriott_marquis_nyc_september_7th_2016_09

Mark Zaid wants to help journalists file a national security-centered FOIA request against Trump so much he’ll do it for free:

According to Zaid’s site, he’s an expert in defending “former, current, and prospective civilian federal employees, defense contractors, members of our active duty and reserve military, and journalists, particularly when they are threatened by the overshadowing spectre of national security.”

Of course, consider the risk. At this point, if you sue Trump, he may sue you back (and/or stick his tongue out at you)—or throw you in jail.

Photo by Michael Vadon – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Hear It from a Journocriminal

photo_spj_fannin-focus-saga-panelists-left-to-right-spj-president-elect-dan-whisenhunt_fannin-focus-publisher-mark-thomason_dr-caorlyn-carlson

Let’s turn our attention to a real Georgia journalist who went to real jail for making a real public records request—really.

From the Atlanta-Journal Constitution’s July 1 piece:

A North Georgia newspaper publisher was indicted on a felony charge and jailed overnight last week – for filing an open-records request.

Fannin Focus publisher Mark Thomason, along with his attorney Russell Stookey, were arrested on Friday and charged with attempted identity fraud and identity fraud. Thomason was also accused of making a false statement in his records request.

Here’s AJC’s nut graph:

Thomason was charged June 24 with making a false statement in an open-records request in which he asked for copies of checks “cashed illegally.” Thomason and Stookey were also charged with identity fraud and attempted identity fraud because they did not get Weaver’s approval before sending subpoenas to banks where Weaver and another judge maintained accounts for office expenses. Weaver suggested that Thomason may have been trying to steal banking information on the checks.


Thomason Speaks at SPJ Region 3’s MediAtlanta

Thomason told his story at Region 3’s annual conference, dubbed MediAtlanta, on Oct. 29—you can watch the whole thing above. He’s in the center, to his left SPJ Georgia president-elect Dan Whisenhunt, to his right Kennesaw State University Professor and FOI Committee member Carolyn Carlson. Video by Nydia Tisdale.

You can read SPJ Georgia board member Julius Suber’s review of the event here.

Photo above courtesy of Julius Suber.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Obama White House Doesn’t Address Complaints on Its Censorship through PIOs, etc.

foi1

This is a guest post by DC-based journalist Kathryn Foxhall.

After eight months the White House is not answering the complaints of journalism and other groups that the Obama Administration has entrenched the practice of prohibiting federal employees to speak to journalists without surveillance by public information offices, and that it often blocks them from communicating at all.

A year ago 53 national organizations sent a letter to Obama urging changes to these policies that constrict information flow. The groups also complained about agencies holding official briefings “on background,” restricting reporters from naming the officials who are talking.

In December, a delegation led by SPJ met with White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and others on the issue. Despite a promise that officials would get back to SPJ, emails to Earnest and Eric Schultz, Principal Deputy Press Secretary, have gone unanswered.

“We don’t even know if President Obama has been advised of our complaint,” said Lynn Walsh, SPJ’s President-elect. “He’s spoken to press groups at least twice without mentioning it. It’s sad that after 53 organizations tell a White House that the silencing of millions of people is a hazard to the public, the Administration decides not to discuss it.”

The delegation to the White House included representatives from SPJ, the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society of News Editors.  They told Earnest, among other things, that these restrictions often hide things from the press and that many times when the press doesn’t know something about federal agencies, the White House itself doesn’t know.

Earnest said he thought PIOs should be coordinating the conversations and that it is part of the journalism skill set to get a person to talk even with someone else in the room.

SPJ’s Walsh said, “We still have a special plea to President Obama not to leave these controls in place. The restrictions routinely withhold information from the public.”

SPJ has sponsored seven surveys that show these restrictions have become pervasive in federal offices, state and local governments, schools and universities and other entities in many areas of the nation.

The fact that blatant information control has become a cultural norm makes it all the more important for President Obama to use his moral suasion to speak out against it and begin the change starting at the federal level, Walsh said.

The need for that is illustrated in the recent Department of Justice report showing rampant civil rights violations by the Baltimore Police Department. Just five months ago SPJ-sponsored surveys found that over half reporters covering police say they can rarely or never interview police officers without involving a police department public information officer.

Police department PIOs in the surveys said they monitor press interviews with police officers for reasons such as, “To ensure that the interviews stay within the parameters that we want.” Half of police PIOs said there were reporters or media outlets they would not allow to speak with officers due to “problems” with the reporters’ stories in the past.

“The Justice Department report shows there can be appalling things locked in an internal culture for many years. The SPJ survey shows police departments use PIOs to actively stop things from coming out. The same is true of federal agencies and other entities that prohibit or chill communication,” said Walsh. “We are asking President Obama whether he really wants institutions to hinder the press from understanding such critical information. Eight months later, we are still waiting for his answer.”

img_0001

Kathryn Foxhall, currently a freelance reporter, has written on health and health policy in Washington, D.C., for over 40 years, including 14 years as editor of the newspaper of the American Public Health Association. Email her at kfoxhall@verizon.net.
Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

SPJ past president testifies to Senate: More FOIA work needed

“This isn’t about journalists against the government. This is about citizens. Journalists are just the proxies,” David Cuillier, past president of the Society of Professional Journalists and member of the SPJ FOI Committee, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Cuillier explained that while the signing of the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act on June 30, the eve of FOIA’s 50th anniversary, is an extraordinary accomplishment, more work must be done to continue improving the people’s access to their government.

Below is a transcript and video replay (skip to 17:00 in the video) of Cuillier’s full testimony on “FOIA at Fifty: Has the Sunshine Law’s Promise Been Fulfilled?” before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 12, 2016:

Chairman Grassley and Members of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), founded in 1909 as the largest and most broad-based journalism organization in the nation, currently representing 7,000 members. I also come to you in my capacity as a researcher and teacher of freedom of information at the University of Arizona School of Journalism.

Kudos to all of you for your continued work to improve the people’s access to their government. I have been impressed with your work, Mr. Chairman, as well as the dedication of Senators Leahy and Cornyn, to continue to improve Americans’ ability to see what their government is up to.

Honestly, I worry for the time when you all decide to retire or move onto other careers. We need strong, principled leaders who believe in the fundamental principles intended in our nation’s founding.  The 2016 FOIA Improvement Act, signed into law June 30 on the eve of FOIA’s 50th anniversary, is an extraordinary accomplishment, demonstrating that people from different perspectives and political persuasions can come together collaboratively to serve the best interest of all citizens. Because of the amendments, we now have a law that codifies the presumption that government records are public unless disclosure would cause foreseeable harm. The Office of Government Information Services now can be more frank and unfettered in its advice to Congress about how to improve the administration of FOIA. Federal agencies are now instructed to provide the public a single online portal to streamline requests. These and other provisions will help citizens and journalists better understand their government, and ultimately improve our society.

Despite these advances, though, I must say that much, much more work is needed to create a law and “sunlight system” as originally intended when FOIA was first enacted in 1966. The law is broken. FOIA has been co-opted as a tool of secrecy, not transparency. I hear from journalists and citizens nearly daily about their problems in maneuvering through an intimidating system fraught with delays, confusion, and excessive fees that often results in no records or pages delivered in unusable formats blacked out entirely or in part. As a result, information that can shed light on unsafe drinking water, inappropriate expenditures, and inefficient government operations remains hidden from the public. I am not exaggerating when I say we have reached a tipping point – a crisis situation – when it comes to freedom of information in this country. We are frogs in the kettle of slowly heating water, and if we don’t jump out now we will find ourselves in a sticky and murky stew.

The research is clear: Requesters are having a harder time than ever in getting the information they need. While agencies are becoming more efficient in processing 700,000 requests a year, denials and the use of exemptions to hide information are rising.  An Associated Press analysis this year of FOIA request data showed that the Obama administration has set a record in the rate requesters are denied information or told that it doesn’t exist – 77 percent of the time. In 2012, agencies’ use of exemptions to deny requests increased 22 percent over the previous year. Comparing the last three years of the George Bush administration to the first three years of the Obama administration, the percentage of denials among most agencies has increased. The culture of secrecy grows beyond FOIA as journalists struggle to receive basic information about schools because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and through excessive message management through public information officers.

Journalists have become so frustrated that last year the Society of Professional Journalists and more than 50 other journalism organizations sent a letter to the White House urging a stop to the excessive secrecy. A delegation met with White House staff last December to discuss the problem but has yet to see any action.

Globally, as well, the United States is falling behind. Ratings of FOIA laws in the 105 nations that have them indicate that U.S. FOIA ranks 46th in its strength, behind such countries as Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Even Mexico’s FOIA ranks better than ours, at ninth place. Other countries have incorporated significant elements into their laws. For example, a dozen nations, such as Liberia, have declared the right to know as a constitutional right, and some international courts have even deemed it a basic human right. In some nations, such as South Korea, FOIA applies to the judicial and legislative branches. South Africa, Brazil, and Estonia require that government contractors doing the government’s business adhere to FOIA. China provides reduced or waived fees for those who demonstrate financial hardship, and officials are required to assist the illiterate and disabled in their requests. Romania requires agencies to respond within five business days, and India assesses monetary penalties against agencies that do not comply with the law. Countries such as Ethiopia provide a public records ombudsman with the authority to force agencies to disclose records, saving citizens the time and expense of litigation. Colombia requires agencies to provide records in different languages and the state of Sinaloa in Mexico requires freedom of information to be taught in the schools.

How could these nations pass us by? It makes sense, really, since the majority of other FOIA laws have been passed in just the past 15 years. Technically, Congress enacted FOIA as an amendment to the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which was created to deal with the growing federal bureaucracy. Amendments through the years tinkered with FOIA, but as we know, significant leaps do not occur often in our political system. Think of U.S. FOIA as a 1966 Ford Mustang. A revered classic. A 2016 Hyundai, however, has better mileage, safety features, sound, reliability, and air conditioning. If we look past sentimentality and focus on efficiency, then perhaps it is time to garage the Mustang, trade up, or at least give it a complete overhaul.

What we have created over the past 50 years in our nation’s governments – at all levels – is a growing culture of secrecy. It infuses our bureaucracies, and is difficult for any one president to change. But Congress can take actions to turn the tide, to set us back on track and create a culture of openness and accountability:

  1. Require FOIA training of all employees. Many of the complaints I receive from journalists is that they encounter government employees who are ignorant of the law, or don’t see the reasoning behind the law – they see it as a hindrance to their day-today work, which is likely true in many cases. The Office of Government Information Services has provided training for hundreds of FOIA officers. Funding should be provided to expand training to not just FOIA officers, but all government employees.
  1. Add enforcement mechanisms. Expecting a grandma from Topeka to hire an attorney to sue an agency is unreasonable. The deck is stacked against the citizen, and journalism organizations are less likely to sue for public records than they were in the past.9 Some states provide penalties for agencies or officials who fail to follow public record laws, such as suspension or removal, or sometimes even criminal repercussions. Those provisions are rarely enforced, but send a strong message. At minimum, courts should be required to assess reasonable attorney fees for plaintiffs that prevail and punitive fines against agencies found to be arbitrary and capricious. States that have such provisions in their laws are some of the most transparent. Perhaps OGIS should be given authority to force disclosure, or delegate that power to an independent entity that could act based on OGIS investigations (good cop, bad cop). Other enforcement models at the state level, such as in Connecticut, or international stage should be examined.
  1. Streamline the system. As Professor Margaret Kwoka points out in her testimony, the bulk of FOIA requests are submitted by commercial interests out to make a buck, not necessarily to help the public find out what its government is up to. Those requests, subsidized by taxpayers through millions of dollars, create backlogs that impede requests from citizens and journalists. Commercial requesters, which, by the way, have lobbied since the 1950s for secrecy exemptions, should be assessed higher fees to recoup the costs and create a more efficient system for requesters working in the public interest.
  1. Make electronic proactive disclosure work. Despite the passage of the e-FOIA 20 years ago, the transition to proactive digital disclosure has been slow. Additional staff and resources are needed to create a single FOIA online portal and develop digital systems that automatically post documents easy for the average person to find and retrieve. Congress has a long tradition of requiring the publication and distribution of government documents for free, such as creation of the federal depository library system. Freedom of information isn’t free; It’s the cost of doing business for a democracy.
  1. Reign in statutory exemptions. Agencies frequently use statutory exemptions to end-run FOIA, making them one of the most frustrating parts of the process. Congress should restrain the abuse of Exemption b(3) and continue to reign in abuses of exemption 5. The privacy exemption, as well, has been twisted, going far beyond its intent. Over-classification is out of control. Congress should clarify the limitations for the use of these secrecy tactics.

These are just some of the ways, along with the excellent recommendations of the other panelists, that Congress can align FOIA with its original intent and begin creating a culture of transparency, not secrecy, throughout out government. Perhaps looking at the best elements of other FOIA laws – in other nations and in the states – we can find new ways of enhancing freedom of information. Or better yet, go beyond what exists today and think of tomorrow, of the amazing power and potential that technology offers to enlighten the population.

While journalists are extremely frustrated and see first-hand how FOIA’s flaws are preventing important information from being released, I want to emphasize that this is not a press issue. Journalists are merely proxies for the public. This is about our citizenry and the very nature of what we aspire to be as a nation. If we do not act now then I fear the trend toward secrecy will continue, and this country will look very different in the next 50 years.

Thank you for your dedication to reinvigorating FOIA and the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions.

David Cuillier, Ph.D., is director and associate professor at the University of Arizona School of Journalism in Tucson, Arizona, where he teaches and researches public affairs reporting, data journalism, and access to government information. Before entering academia in 2006, he was a reporter and editor at newspapers in the Pacific Northwest, where he covered local, state, and federal government. For the past 10 years he has been a newsroom trainer for the Society of Professional Journalists, the largest and most broad-based journalism organization in the nation, and he served as SPJ’s Freedom of Information Committee chair 2007-11 and as its president 2013-14. He currently serves on the SPJ FOI Committee, as well as the board of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. He is co-author with Charles N. Davis of The Art of Access: Strategies for Acquiring Public Records and Transparency 2.0: Digital Data and Privacy in a Wired World, as well as numerous peer-reviewed research journal articles regarding the state of government transparency, public attitudes toward freedom of information, and the psychological aspects of accessing public records.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Journalist Handcuffed For Public Records Is Unacceptable

A journalist in Louisiana was taken away in handcuffs Wednesday while inquiring about the status of a state public records request submitted to the Town of White Castle in Louisiana.

Watch the video here.

You’ll see Chris Nakamoto, an anchor and investigative reporter for WBRZ-TV, the ABC affiliate in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, remaining calm throughout the ordeal.

The station has been asking questions about a salary increase the Mayor of White Castle, Jermarr Williams appears to have received. According to WBRZ reports, Williams was earning $20.31 an hour but in November 2015, records show he was earning $24.44.

Attempting to find out if the local city council voted to increase Williams’ salary and wanting information about mileage reimbursements, Nakamoto submitted a request under the Louisiana Public Records Act.

The Act, allows any member of the public to view public records unless the records are determined to be exempt.

While inquiring about the missing portion of his request Wednesday, a security guard asks the journalist to leave. Nakamoto stresses, he is inside a public building, on public property and will not step outside. Next, the security guard cuffs Nakamoto and takes him to the police department. Nakamoto was charged with a misdemeanor.

Thursday, WBRZ reported, the final portion of the public records request was fulfilled. More on that here.

An email to Williams was not immediately answered.

Prohibiting the public and journalists from obtaining information that they are entitled to is unacceptable. To take it a step further and arrest someone, who is inquiring and asking questions about a request is ridiculous. As we know obtaining information is sometimes hard enough, but to worry that you might be charged or arrested while inquiring about a request is annoying and unnecessary.

This information belongs to the public and should be handed over easily.

SPJ does not support or encourage the arrest of journalists and members of the public, who are trying to obtain public information. SPJ also does not support or encourage public agencies and individuals who fight the release of public information.

If you experience this at any time, we encourage you to let us know. You can tweet directly to me, @LWalsh or @SPJ_Tweets.

Lynn Walsh is President-Elect of SPJ. She also serves on the FOI and Ethics committees. She is currently leading the investigative team at KNSD in San Diego, California. She loves holding the powerful accountable and spends more time than she would like fighting for access to public information. Follow her on Twitter, @LWalsh or contact her via email: Lynn.K.Walsh@gmail.com.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

State legislatures veer toward secrecy

Troubling legislation in four states would seriously undermine the public’s right to know and ability to hold government officials accountable.

Two of the bills — in Indiana and New Jersey — would restrict access to police body camera footage. Legislation in Florida would make it more difficult for citizens and the press to challenge improper government secrecy. And Massachusetts lawmakers are set to vote on a measure that, while aimed at improving the state’s public records law, could do the opposite.

Open government groups have raised concerns about each of the proposals.

Indiana: Police video recordings

A still of body camera footage from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department captured in July 2015. The video recorded a confrontation between police and a man who fired shots at officers.

A still image of body camera footage from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department captured in July 2015. The video recorded a confrontation between police officers and a man who fired shots at them.

The Indiana House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would impose numerous roadblocks on journalists and others who want to obtain police body camera and dash camera videos.

Police already have wide discretion to deny release of such recordings — decisions that can be difficult if not possible to challenge, according to the Hoosier State Press Association.

Under the legislation, House Bill 1019, only two classes of people would be entitled to inspect police video recordings: (1) those depicted in the videos, and (2) when a video shows the interior of a property, the owner of that property. Neither would be allowed to make copies of the recordings, but rather would only have a right to view them.

Anyone else, including reporters, would have to file a lawsuit to obtain a police video recording. Requesters would have to show that disclosure is in the public interest, does not create “significant risk of substantial harm to any person or to the general public,” and will not prejudice civil or criminal proceedings.

If a court orders release of a recording, police would be required to obscure a litany of depictions, such as acts of severe violence, anyone who is under 18 years of age, and crime victims and witnesses.

Requesters who prevail would not be entitled to get their attorney’s fees reimbursed.

The bill could also hamper newsgathering by requiring record requesters to know particular details of every video being requested. Requesters would have to provide the date and time of the activity that was recorded, where that activity occurred, and the name of at least one person who was “directly involved” in the activity but not in a law enforcement capacity.

The Hoosier State Press Association, Indiana Broadcasters Association and Radio Television Digital News Association are opposed to the legislation.

It now goes before the state Senate.

New Jersey: Police body camera footage, 911 records

Similarly, a New Jersey legislator has introduced a bill that would entirely exempt release of police body camera footage from the state’s public records law, along with audio recordings and transcripts of 911 calls.

The bill’s author, state Sen. Paul Sarlo, has said he might amend the legislation to allow for disclosure when police are involved in altercations.

Sarlo represents several municipalities that are being sued by the press for access to records about a 2014 incident in which police shot and killed a 23-year-old black man.

Florida: Reimbursement of attorney’s fees

A Florida bill would make it more difficult for the public and press to enforce the state’s public records law.

The legislation “would remove the requirement that government officials who intentionally violate the state’s public records law pay attorney’s fees when citizens take them to court,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Instead, the bill would make reimbursement discretionary, letting judges decide when plaintiffs who prevail in public-records lawsuits should have their attorney’s fees covered.

Many states have cost-shifting provisions similar to Florida’s current version, which often are the only way plaintiffs can afford to go to court.

The legislation advanced Tuesday in a state Senate committee; a state House of Representatives committee already signed off on a companion bill.

Massachusetts: Public records law reform needs reform

SPJNE President Danielle McLean and protesters in front of the Massachusetts State House during the Public Records Reform Rally on Jan. 21, 2016. Photo by Joyce Pellino Crane.

SPJNE President Danielle McLean and protesters in front of the Massachusetts State House during the Public Records Reform Rally on Jan. 21, 2016. Photo by Joyce Pellino Crane.

The Massachusetts Senate is expected to vote within the next few weeks on legislation aimed at improving the state’s public records law, but the proposal has numerous problems, according to Danielle McLean, president of SPJ New England and a member of SPJ’s national Freedom of Information Committee.

The measure, along with a companion House bill that passed late last year, seeks to limit some fees assessed to record requesters and provides for the possibility that plaintiffs who prevail in public-records lawsuits can have their legal expenses reimbursed. But as McLean points out, the legislation has serious problems:

  • It welcomes delays. The legislation would allow the government to wait more than two months to respond to record requests. Currently, officials are supposed to respond within 10 days, but the bill would expand that deadline to 60 days for state government and 75 days for local governments.
  • It restricts enforcement. The bill would require that public-records lawsuits be filed within 30 days of a denial being issued, a fairly narrow window to appeal. The legislation also does not mandate that plaintiffs who prevail will get their legal fees reimbursed; that decision would instead be up to a judge.
  • It fails to address gaping holes. The bill also does nothing to make the public records law apply to the governor, state Legislature or state court system, although it does authorize a study to explore that possibility.

McLean and other freedom of information advocates held a rally last week on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston, calling on senators to amend the law so it requires faster responses to public records requests, provides stronger enforcement mechanisms and reduces fees charged to requesters.

Approximately 25 to 30 people participated in the rally, including journalists, activists and college students.

“During the rally, we had some awesome dialogue, made a lot of noise, and gained some good momentum for the cause,” McLean said.

Jonathan Anderson is chair of the Society’s Freedom of Information Committee.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Connect

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn


© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ