You have an important meeting at your job to talk about something a lot of people, maybe even a U.S. Senator, care about. You take notes in the meeting, right?

You jot down a task assigned to you. ("Find out if the FLDS are having sex with kids.") Or maybe scribble something interesting. ("Bill says Warren Jeffs is funding al-Qaeda.")

But not if you're the attorneys general in Utah, Arizona or Nevada. (i.e. The Bigamy Belt.) They met June 11 in Las Vegas to talk about polygamy and they all say they did not take notes.

I sent Utah's Mark Shurtleff, Arizona's Terry Goddard, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada a letter seeking:

-- All e-mails, correspondence, memorandums, notes or other documents generated as a result of the June 11, 2008, meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, concerning polygamy.

Shurtleff and Cortez Masto's office both said they had no responsive documents. Goddard's office supplied a newspaper column he wrote after the meeting and a copy of an e-mail from The Tribune asking for an interview, but no notes of what was discussed in the meeting.

Both Goddard and Shurtleff gave interviews to The Tribune after the meeting where they discussed, in general terms, what was said in the meeting, but I was seeking more specifics.

Mohave County, Ariz., Attorney Matt Smith also says he has no notes on the meeting. I'm waiting for a response from Washington County, Utah.

-- nc

Labels: Polygamy

I guess I'm not the only one that has some problems obtaining records from the FBI.

But as I read this column from Alex Heard, I did more than cringe at the idea of losing valuable records. I also gained an appreciation for the complexity of keeping and organizing everything the FBI does.

There're records kept at FBI headquarters, in field offices across the country and at foreign embassies and consulates and, if Heard's valid point is realized, perhaps other storage facilities. Read the file below and notice how many places I sent the FBI probing when I was trying to find documents on the FLDS leaders.

When you're done reading the Heard column, do yourself a favor and check out the list of categories used to organize FBI files. Try not to giggle when you realize G-Men had to create a filing system for "Interstate Transportation of Lottery Tickets" and "Excess Profits on Wool."

-- nc

The photo illustration is borrowed from The Slate column by Heard. Rulon-FBI-files052207.pdf

Labels: FBI, FOIA

There was a time, not so long ago, when you could only serve a Freedom of Information Act request via the mail.

Thank goodness those days are gone, because frustrating exchanges like the one I had today -- I was told by the Air Force's Air Combat Command that I needed to send a request to Hill Air Force Base; Hill then told me I needed to send the request to the ACC -- used to take months.

Today, via e-mail, it took only about a day to work out the problem.

At least, I think it's worked out ...

-- mdl

Labels: DOD, FOIA, Hill Air Force Base

One of my first posts on this blog was about a problem I encountered while requesting records from the FBI. And so it goes again.

I have been trying to obtain old FBI files — if there are any — on a now deceased Utah figure. (I won't say who. I'm afraid of tipping off the competition, even though our Web site folks assure me hardly anyone reads this blog.)

Citing the Freedom of Information Act, I filed a records request with the FBI field office in Salt Lake City. The office forwarded my request to headquarters in Washington, D.C., and within in a couple weeks — quick turnaround in the FOI world — I received a response. There were no responsive records in Salt Lake City.

OK, fair enough. But my subject also lived in California. What records are there?

I filed a request with the FBI field office in Sacramento on Thursday. Friday I received a phone call from that field office. An FBI agent told me that I needed to send that request to Washington, D.C.

Wait a minute. The Salt Lake City field office accepts my requests, I said. Why can't your office?

The agent told me the bureau's FOIA guidelines say requests should be sent to headquarters. He was polite but firm on this topic. He suggested my written request say ask the FBI to look for records in Sacramento — where I already sent a request.

— NC

Labels: FBI, FOIA

Today's Tribune has a nice one-two combination of stories about government records.

In one article, reporter Cathy McKitrick uses Utah's Government Records Access and Management Act to elaborate on the controversy surrounding the state treasurer's race. E-mails raise further questions about whether a bribe was offered in exchange for a candidate dropping out.

Then, up in Ogden, Kristen Moulton sat through a court hearing all about GRAMA. In that case, the Sierra Club is still pursuing records, while the city of Ogden is arguing records are exempt from disclosure.

— NC

Late at night, my mother calls. She has that tone in her voice that means something is wrong.

“Grandpa fell down and is at the hospital," she tells me. "The doctors tell us we have to put him in a nursing home. But, Matt, how do I pick? How do I know what place will really take care of him?”

She called me because I’m a reporter and I'm used to rooting out information. I tried everything I could think of to help, but found little to go on. In the end, my family placed my grandfather at Christus St. Joesph Villa, where he lives today, simply because he would be close to relatives.

The urgency and fear in my mother’s voice stuck with me, especially because I knew that so many families go through the same thing all the time. When my bosses asked me to write about aging from a state government perspective, I knew exactly what story I wanted to start with.

The premise: What information is out there to help people differentiate between good nursing homes and bad ones?

I zeroed in on government inspections, which are regulated federally but handled locally -- and which are clearly public records under the law.

The Tribune embarked on this project in November of 2006. The stories will finally appear in the paper this weekend.

The series got delayed by all kinds of things, including the state Legislature, elections and my move from Salt Lake City to The Tribune’s Washington, D.C. bureau -- but the biggest hold up was prying the records from the Utah Department of Health.

It took almost four months to get the first batch of data after The Tribune made its original request. No one disputed the information was public, but the health department had no easy internal mechanism to hand over the reports.

Although this is incredibly valuable information for those who are looking into placing their loved ones into a nursing home, the reports are not available online, nor in a file where they can easily be e-mailed, burned on a CD or even printed out. Rather, the reports are contained in a government database that resembles microfiche. A state employee had to go page by page to make sure he handed over only public data, not personal medical information.

The process was time consuming and costly and since they were not excited about doing it, the health department stalled at first. It took a few months, but the staff eventually warmed up and became more helpful.

What is a total challenge in Utah is a piece of cake in other states. Arizona has a really simple site that allows people to not only compare the last three inspection reports, but also click on individual violations to get more info.

Utah officials say they don’t have the resources to make such an easy-to-use site. So The Tribune has come up with its own database, and while it doesn’t include every report, it does include the most serious ones.

Here's what we're hoping: If you ever get that same panicked call that I got, you'll have a place to go to help you make one of the most important decisions of your life.

Labels: GRAMA, Utah Department of Health

Today's article about the old FBI investigation into the FLDS leadership relied on documents I acquired under the Freedom of Information Act. But the acquisition didn't go smoothly.

In January, 2007, I made my first request to the FBI asking for their files on LeRoy S. Johnson and Rulon T. Jeffs, two former prophets of the FLDS. They've been dead for years and files maintained by the federal government usually are subject to disclosure once the subject dies. (Check out the list of famous corpses in the FBI reading room.)

On March 29, 2007, I received a letter from the FBI saying it had no files on Johnson. Then, less than a month later, I received a telephone call from the FBI employee processing my request for Jeffs' files. She told me that in searching for Jeffs documents, she found pages discussing Johnson. The employee sounded annoyed that no one had found them earlier.

The first batch of documents arrived in July. The FBI redacted some names and omitted entire pages because they were concerned with violating the privacy of the people who are still alive. In some cases, the government said, papers had been destroyed years ago. But I used the information in the documents to make additional requests. I asked for the entire files referenced in the information about Johnson and Jeffs.

The back-and-forth continued until January, when the U.S. Department of Justice claimed it had no more documents it could give me. In all, I received a couple hundred pages.

-- nc

Labels: FBI, FOIA, Polygamy

Given all the public vitriol that seems to greet every new bit of news about Real Salt Lake's relationship with Sandy city, I was greatly surprised by something I read in the Deseret News this morning:

"The Sandy City Council, acting both on its own behalf and as a redevelopment agency, signed off on the remaining $10 million in the $45 million public funding package (for Real's new stadium). The meeting was a public hearing, but no residents showed up to comment."

The council's online agenda, which appears to have been posted in accordance with Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, does show that the council was scheduled to recess in order to convene into a Redevelopment Agency meeting. I had trouble finding a similar agenda for the RDA portion of the meeting, but Sandy spokesman Nick Duerkson told me that the notification was properly made and posted in accordance with the law.

Either way, it wasn't exactly a secret that this was coming up. You'd think that the staunchest critics would be on the ball.

For his part, Duerkson said he wasn't surprised. He said Sandy meets with RSL in a bi-monthly planning meeting -- and usually only a few members of the public bother to show up.

I suppose it's far easier to attack RSL and Sandy on the Internet comment boards and letters pages of the state's daily newspapers than it is to actually show up and try to make a difference. And yes, I'm sure an argument could be made that the council would have signed off on the final piece of this funding package no matter who showed up to complain at the meeting.

But when the public abandons its duty to participate in the process, it allows those in power to say -- and correctly so -- "we didn't hear any complaints."

-- mdl

Labels: Open and Public Meetings Act, Sandy, Sports

Dozens of newspapers, including this one (read the story here) participated in a project this past weekend that shined light on earmarks in Congress.

And this gave me an opportunity to fill a gap in the public record.

Utah Rep. Jim Matheson complied grudgingly. His staff handed over the names of defense contractors that would benefit from the pet projects he is seeking. But they wouldn’t part with the information easily.

For many this may seem a bit confusing. Isn’t the government supposed to operate in the open?

When your representative sponsors a bill that would spend your tax dollars, the proposal is public. Anyone can read the bill, attend the committee hearings and watch the vote.

But when your representative seeks an earmark that would spend your tax dollars, that process is largely clouded in secrecy. Congress doesn’t release earmark requests, and even when projects are funded, the information is limited.

About 100 elected officials have opened up on their own, releasing lists of what pet projects they support.

The only one from Utah is Rep. Jim Matheson, but even in releasing his earmark requests, his office originally excluded the intended recipients of his defense earmarks. Defense earmarks are different from most other requests because they can easily reach into the millions of dollars, generally go to private companies and often these companies are big campaign contributors.

Still Matheson provided more information than the rest of the delegation.

Click below to see Matheson’s original earmark requests.

Matheson%20Earmark%20Requests2008.pdf

Reps. Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop refused to release their requests. So did Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett. They said making the information public may offend companies or local governments that don’t ultimately get the money they seek, and they don’t want to deal with the angry phone calls. They also said releasing their earmark requests puts them at a competitive disadvantage because other members of Congress will know what they asked for.

Matheson spokesman Alyson Heyrend said at the time: "Congressman Matheson has said from day one that his requests are based on the merits of the project and the overall benefits to Utahns. He's comfortable sharing that with the public."

This quote appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune on March 30. Two months later, and after repeated requests, his office followed through, providing the information on the defense contractors. Though they were still working to identify the company connected with the third project listed below.

Here is the info:

1. L-3 Communications would receive $7.3 million to develop a handheld video reciever known as the ROVER, which can help with surveillance and picking out military targets.

2. The Mathematical Science Research Institute would receive $3 million to support its TranSim driver’s training program, which is a simulator the military can use to train drivers of heavy equipment.

3. An unidentified company would receive $5 million for a system that would identify and locate electrical signals of interest for air and ground commanders. It is part of the Senior Scout program. Previous defense earmarks have gone to L-3 Communications.

4. Ceramatec would receive $3 million for an alternative pain medication delivery system.

5. Cyberkinetics would receive $2.2 million to fund a technology that allows a human brain to interface with a computer.

6. Kennecott would receive $5.8 million to develop a copper-rotor induction motor that could be used in weapons of the future.

7. LiveWire Test Labs would receive $5.3 million to develop arc fault circuit breakers that would help eliminate intermittent electrical faults that cause in-flight problems.

8. EDO Corporation would receive $3.5 million to fund the development of a new navigation system for ships.

Matheson has received $25,000 in campaign contributions for his current reelection campaign from L-3, Ceramatec, Kennecott and EDO, according to financial disclosure forms.

-- mc

Labels: Candidates, secrecy

With the two major parties looking as though they have chosen their nominees for president, I'm going to use this blog in the coming months to write about their stances and histories on open government issues.

But we start today not with John McCain or Barack Obama. The Baton Rouge (La.) Advocate on Thursday has an article about how Gov. Bobby Jindal helped sink open records reform in the Bayou State.

Jindal has been discussed as a running mate for McCain. Jindal (Seen above in camoflauge as apparently he likes to hide himself, too.) has says he wants more transparency in Louisiana government, The Advocate reports, but favors a bill in the state legislature which would seal more records in the governor's office.

--nc

Labels: Candidates

A few weeks ago I wondered aloud whether former LSU quarterback Ryan Perrilloux failed a drug test and, if so, what the circumstances were. So, I did what this blog is all about: I sent a records request.

Louisiana State University responded to my request last week. The records show five LSU athletes tested positive for banned substances since from Jan. 1 to May 7.

Six other athletes had "Probationary Positives," according to LSU. That means screenings found a negligible amount of drugs in their system or the athletes did something in violation of the drug policy, such as having a medication without a prescription.

LSU declined to identify the offenders, specify what substances were found or what sports the athletes played. It should be noted 339 other tests during that time were negative. The cited documents are below. Here's a link to LSU's drug testing data from previous years.

Perrilloux gave an interview recently discussing the drug whispers, sort of.

-- nc

Labels: Sports

The Utah Attorney General's Office cracked open its investigative file on first-term Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller this week -- but not without some resistance.

It took an open-records request and later an appeal to sneak a peek at the A.G.'s findings about allegations of teen drinking, drug use and illegal day-care operations at the South Jordan home of the Republican D.A.

Funny thing is, the file only bolstered the A.G. case that Miller had done nothing criminal. Take a look at this excerpt written about a confidential source who once worked for Miller:

"It was obvious during the interview that the source did not like the Millers. During the interview, the source made comments such as, 'I have a personal vendetta' and 'I gave my life to that b----.

"...Source expressed disapproval as to how the Millers stored and kept alcohol in their home. For example, the Millers would keep beer in the garage where kids could get to it. Source also said they would not always keep the alcohol and liquor that was stored in the home under lock and key."

But here's the kicker:

"Source said they knew Lohra did not supply or allow minors to have alcohol. Source answered 'no' when asked if they had any specific knowledge of minors taking alcohol from the home without Lohra's consent."

The Republican-led A.G.'s Office initially denied releasing the records to avoid revealing the identity of a confidential source -- presumably the one listed above. Those papers later were made public (after a month's wait) by simply excluding a recorded interview with that individual and redacting any information that might disclose his or her identity.

-- js