|
Of so called "public servants" are frequently despots who want to keep their actions as government rulers secret.
PROMISES, PROMISES: Candidates shield records Posted 11/30/2011 5:36 AM ET By Stephen Braun, Associated Press WASHINGTON — In the final weeks of Mitt Romney's term as Massachusetts governor, a small team of aides combed through statehouse filing cabinets. They filled more than 630 cartons with papers destined for the state archives as the primary documentary legacy of his administration. One floor, though, was almost completely off limits to them: Romney's inner sanctum, his third-floor office. The former legislative affairs director who headed the archiving effort, John O'Keefe, recalls that his team was given a stack of Romney's public schedules over four years and a limited variety of other documents from the governor's executive office, but not much else. "We were told we were not in charge of archiving the third floor," he says. The mystery deepened recently when the chief legal counsel for Romney's Democratic successor, Gov. Deval Patrick, said that just before Patrick took office, material on a state government web server that housed Romney's emails was erased. Top Romney aides also bought and removed their state-issued computer hard drives, and remaining leased computers were replaced. Romney said he followed the law in authorizing the purge, and his campaign aides said their actions were based on a 1997 Massachusetts court ruling that all governors' records are private. Romney's selective policy toward public access and preservation of his executive records raises stark questions about how transparent his administration would be if he were to become president. He's not alone. Other leading candidates for the presidency -- incumbent Barack Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- have touted their commitment to transparency, but their administrations also have been selective at times in the records they disclose. They have limited, stalled or denied access when it suited their purposes. "What I wish Americans could expect is a politician who talked a good game and walked a good game, too," said Ken Bunting, executive director of the nonpartisan National Freedom of Information Coalition. "The reality is everybody gives lip service to transparency and accountability." Romney's submission of paper documents to the Massachusetts archives was made "in the interest of transparency and to help provide a record of his time in office," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser. But the holdings in the archives are far from comprehensive. An Associated Press reporter sent from Washington earlier this fall spent a week examining the Romney archives, but did not find paper copies of any emails to or from Romney or any internal calendars or in-house memos -- all commonly used by governors. There are no state archives records accounting for what happened to those materials. The growing use by government agencies and political campaigns of new channels of electronic communication, including text messages, online videos and social media services, has opened new dimensions in the availability of public records. But presidential candidates haven't been especially transparent. "There's the potential for a lot more raw information than in the past as emails and other electronic communications replace phone and face-to-face conversations," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit public interest group. "The problem is we're seeing officials and governments moving more and more to shield those materials from public access." Only about one-quarter of the 630 cartons of Romney paper records are available for inspection at the Massachusetts archives. State legal officials have yet to say whether the 1997 court ruling allows access to the other material. Even if they do, Assistant State Archivist Michael Comeau said, staff shortages and time-consuming redaction checks could extend delays close to the 2012 election. More than 75 cartons examined by the AP revealed staff and legislative documents but no internal materials written to or from Romney himself -- except for ceremonial bill-signing and official letters. As governor, Romney's careful line on providing records was based on a 1997 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that "the governor is not explicitly included" among other state officials and agencies covered by the state's Public Records Law, which generally requires agencies to submit to records requests. Other governors since 1997 have interpreted the ruling similarly. The AP submitted detailed questions to Romney about how his administration handled public records when he was governor, but the campaign responded with only a brief statement: "The governor's office in Massachusetts is not subject to the state's public records law. As a legal matter, it is not required to disclose any documents." Fehrnstrom, who was Romney's chief spokesman during that era, said the Romney campaign does not possess any remaining gubernatorial records outside of the Massachusetts archives. After The Boston Globe first reported that his aides had purged electronic files, Romney said the deleted materials might have contained confidential medical, judicial or personnel records. Still, when Romney's archive team found confidential files at the end of his administration, they separated those materials from thousands of other documents that were turned over to the archives. O'Keefe, now city manager in Manchester, Vt., recalled that anything that appeared "confidential in nature" was turned over to a private vendor for shredding. Suggesting that Romney's Massachusetts administration "deliberately sought to delete public records" in advance of his 2007 presidential run, the Democratic National Committee has pressed three separate Massachusetts public records requests for more background on the purge. Romney's campaign has responded with its own request to Patrick's office asking for any evidence of collaboration between his staff and Obama re-election officials. Gavi Wolfe, a legal counsel for the Boston office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Romney's authorization of the purging of third-floor electronic files set an "alarming" precedent: "I would be concerned about the chief executive wanting to shield the actions of his administration from public scrutiny." Romney said during a New Hampshire campaign stop that if elected, his presidential administration "would do what's required by the law and then some." In three years in the White House, Obama set an even more ambitious standard, committing publicly to improving transparency and setting clear goals for federal agencies to respond more quickly and expansively to public records requests. Obama signed an executive order on his first day in office in 2009, directing federal officials to make good on his detailed commitment to broaden accountability. His directive led to the opening of White House visitor logs and plans to improve responses to records requests, whistleblower protections and declassification of outdated secret documents. But many of Obama's broad commitments have not been met. In the face of criticism, the Justice Department abandoned a proposal that would have allowed officials to pretend that some government files didn't exist when people asked to see them. And the government completely turned down records in one-third of all requests in 2010 -- even censoring 194 pages of internal emails about Obama's Open Government directive. The White House and Energy Department have been hesitant and selective turning over records related to the GOP-led congressional investigation of Solyndra, the failed California solar panel company. The AP pressed three separate appeals for records in September, but Energy Department officials said they would take months because of the number of documents and requests to read them. In early October, as Congress threatened to issue subpoenas, White House officials quickly provided reporters with thousands of pages and DVDs filled with hundreds of emails. White House officials would not comment on the sudden shift, but campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said, "The president and this administration are changing the ways Washington works in terms of transparency." In Texas, Perry has made similar claims, pointing to broad swaths of electronic data that his administration has made available online -- from state agency expenditures to death certificates. But Perry's administration has also blocked viewing of expenditures for his security guards when he travels, even though much of that travel has been subsidized by campaign funds or by private business executives. He also barred access to his reviews of death penalty cases and to his private calendars, even though his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, had made both available when he was governor. "The people of America aren't seeing the real Rick Perry," said Keith Elkins, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. "They may get a glimpse of him on the campaign trail, but the real record has been hidden and carefully parceled out." ___ Associated Press writers Brett J. Blackledge, Matthew Daly and Jack Gillum contributed to this report.
Emanuel denies records requests on fee hikes, speed cameras
By David Kidwell, Chicago Tribune reporter
12:08 a.m. CST, November 30, 2011
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has denied requests for public records that might shed light on his decisions to raise vehicle fees and water rates and to legalize speeding camera tickets that could hit drivers with $100 fines.
It's the latest in a pattern of records denials from the mayor, who proclaimed a new commitment to transparency at City Hall under his leadership.
After Emanuel this fall proposed a series of fee increases to help balance his budget, the Tribune filed requests for any internal City Hall documents to show how Emanuel came up with his plans to charge homeowners and drivers more, including emails, memos and any relevant contacts with outside companies or interests.
To date, the only internal document provided by the city is a PowerPoint demonstration on the need for water rate hikes, which consists mostly of background on the city's water system. Some slides were removed by the city, which cited a broad exemption for "deliberative materials" under the Freedom of Information Act.
Law Department spokesman Roderick Drew said the city identified about 1,300 relevant emails each for the speed camera and water rate issues, and about 700 emails relevant to the vehicle sticker increases. But the Emanuel administration refused to produce them on the grounds that it would be too much trouble to remove any opinions or deliberations that they say they are allowed to withhold from the public under state law.
In an attempt to narrow its October requests, the Tribune three weeks ago asked for a log of the emails, including the subject line, sender and recipient. After being informed that the Tribune intended to publish the denials of the records, Drew last week said the email logs would be forthcoming. By late Tuesday, they had not arrived.
After Emanuel announced his budget plans, the Tribune reported that there is little evidence to back up his claims that minivans and sport utility vehicles — singled out for big increases under the original proposal — cause more damage to roads. His revised fee plan passed by the City Council lowered the increases but broadened them to cover more vehicles.
The newspaper also reported that the water and sewer rate hikes that would double many Chicago homeowners' bills by 2015 would also be passed along to the suburbs. Some suburban officials have questioned how the city plans to use the money.
Separately, the mayor announced and gained quick state legislative approval for his plan to install speed cameras at 79 intersections near schools and parks, arguing that the first-ever use of such cameras in Illinois is needed to protect children. Tribune reports have questioned the statistics cited by the administration and disclosed that the legislation, awaiting action from Gov. Pat Quinn, would give Emanuel authority to expand the potentially lucrative program to nearly half the city.
The mayor previously rejected broader requests for emails or logs documenting his interactions with top aides, and his administration suggested that the newspaper tailor its requests to particular issues. But the administration continues to deny records requests aimed at giving the public a window into how he and his aides come up with major proposals, develop them, discuss alternatives and what role is played by outside interests or lobbyists.
David Morrison, associate director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the refusal to supply records about initiatives aimed at the public's pocketbooks "couldn't be any more egregious.
"At some point you expect your public officials to be reasonable. When they just keep saying no, it's no longer about right and wrong," Morrison said. "It's about what they want, and they don't want you to know anything."
Emanuel's press office has defended his transparency efforts by focusing on the administration's push to publish thousands of records online, including contracts and budget figures.
dkidwell@tribune.com
PUC pipeline secrecy battle heading to Sacramento
Eric Nalder,Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
A battle is brewing in the state Legislature over secrecy at the California Public Utilities Commission.
State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said Tuesday that his first action when the Legislature reconvenes in January will be to introduce a bill to repeal a law barring the public release of most records at the commission without a vote of its five appointed members.
Yee cited a report Sunday in The Chronicle detailing how the 1951 law and related regulations have blocked or delayed citizen access to the vast majority of commission documents.
Revelations that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had incomplete and misleading documents about the pipeline that exploded last year in San Bruno, and the commission's failure to police the company beforehand, make repealing the secrecy law all the more urgent, Yee said.
"For a number of years, the utilities commission has been a sort of a kingdom unto itself," Yee said. "We are saying roll down that drawbridge, the sunlight is coming through."
The state's utilities, including PG&E, successfully lobbied against a proposal similar to Yee's in 2004. Company spokesman David Eisenhauer said Tuesday that PG&E would not comment on Yee's legislation before seeing it.
He said PG&E has changed since the San Bruno disaster, although "there are obviously certain things that we wouldn't want to have public" such as information crucial to infrastructure security.
Frank Lindh, a former PG&E lawyer who is now the Public Utilities Commission's general counsel, said the commission will vote as early as January on whether to back Yee's proposal. The commission might not support a complete repeal of the secrecy law, but does believe that "openness is not harmful" when it comes to pipeline safety documents, Lindh said.
Key protections
Lindh said the secrecy law could prevent terrorists from obtaining information that would allow them to target utilities' infrastructure. Also, he said, the statute bars electricity sellers from inside data that could allow them to drive up prices.
"We would not be willing to throw away the baby with the bath water and abandon" the secrecy law, Lindh said. "But there are probably some areas for improvements."
Yee said Lindh's arguments against complete repeal were a "straw man." If the secrecy law is repealed, he said, the commission would fall under the California Public Records Act, which contains exemptions that will "protect the safety of the public" and "protect proprietary information," Yee said.
Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, said he intends to co-author a version of Yee's bill in the Assembly. He said he expects opposition from the three major utilities in the state, including PG&E.
"They do a full-court press and they are very effective," Hill said.
Changed landscape
But the PG&E pipeline explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in September 2010 has changed the legislative landscape from what it was when the 2004 repeal effort was defeated, said Roy Ulrich, vice chairman of California Common Cause.
He said the public is more suspicious of the utilities in the wake of San Bruno, and that as a result, "I think it will not be as tough as it was in 2004."
California ranks among the least transparent states in the nation for the availability of pipeline safety records, according to an analysis released this week by a nonprofit group, the Pipeline Safety Trust.
The data the trust considered included pipeline maps, accident reports, audits, citation reports and damage from excavations.
The California Public Utilities Commission provides less than half the data looked at in the survey, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the trust.
"Clearly, citizens in California can't get their hands on gas-related incident data, enforcement records or inspection records or maps of transmission lines," Weimer said.
Terry Francke, an expert on transparency laws in California, said the fate of Yee's proposal will depend on the ability of the utilities to defeat it with lobbying money and campaign contributions.
Money and power
Common Cause Sacramento lobbyist Phillip Ung said the state's three largest utilities spend more than $2 million a year on lobbying alone.
"I think the question is how loud the money talks this time," said Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a group that advocates for openness in state government.
E-mail the writers at ericnalder@hearst.com and jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.
|