blogs.sltrib.com - The Vault: A blog about opening government, unlocking doors and uncovering secrets

Archives

Bios

Who are these guys? Read all about Matt Canham, Nate Carlisle, Robert Gehrke, Dan Harrie, Matthew D. LaPlante and Jeremiah Stettler.

More Blogs

Tribune Blogs Index

Monday, August 25, 2008

The new administration will have mail

Leftover work for the next president:

— Iraq

— Economy

— Find lost e-mails

OK, so the last item won't receive as much attention as the first two, but according to a White House memo, the next commander in chief will play a role in a mini-drama over the Bush Administration and e-mails.

Here's a briefing on the dispute that will water the mouths of political junkies and techno geeks. Here's my condensed version:

The federal government is suppose to archive its e-mail. The Bush Administration has had trouble doing this, it says, because of technical problems related to converting to new technology. A couple groups sued to force the archiving.

In the middle of all this, a federal judge ruled the White House Office of Administration did not have to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, even though the White House itself does.

Now, we are hearing there is a plan to recovery up to 225 days of e-mails from 2002 and 2003 but the recover will run into 2009, leaving the issue for the next president.

-- nc

Labels: Candidates, FOIA

Monday, August 18, 2008

FOI, First Amendment advocate dies at 74

Journalists and open government supporters today are mourning the death of Jack Landau. Even if you haven't heard of him, you've benefitted from his work.

In 1970, Landau joined Ben Bradlee and Mike Wallace, among others, in forming the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The committee has fought to prevent journalists from being subpoenaed and for freedom of information issues.

Read more from The Washington Post.

Or from the Associated Press.

-- nc

Labels: FOIA

Monday, July 28, 2008

Irony: 'Bob Barr Blackout Watch'

If you're a regular reader of the comment boards on SLTRIB.com, you're probably anti-Mormon, anti-gun, want every Hispanic to return to Mexico (even if the person's family immigrated from Guatemala four generations ago), livid at the Democrats, livid at the Republicans or you just like reading all the messages from people who fall into one of these categories and wonder what bunker these crazies live in.

You've probably also seen comments like this one.

At July 29, 2008 9:10 AM , tyrannicide said...
Tribune's Bob Barr Blackout Watch: It's been 64 days since the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr as its presidential candidate, but the Salt Lake Tribune has yet to report this news in its print edition.

This poster has been railing on the newspaper for not reporting on Barr's candidacy. I can't speak for the entire Tribune, but I get the point. And I like the tenacity shown by "tyrannicide."

But here's the funny thing, I'm waiting on some Barr news, too. No, not in the news pages. Barr is on the list of presidential candidates who haven't responded to my inquires about stances on the Freedom of Information Act.

I'm also waiting to hear from the campaigns of John McCain, Barack Obama and Ralph Nader. The only candidate to respond has been the Chuck Baldwin campaign on the Constitution Party ticket.

McCain and Obama receive lots of press inquiries, so I'm not offended they're choosing to blow me off. Nader keeps himself busy always.

But, and "tyrannicide" should back me up on this, Barr obviously isn't busy with reporters' questions and should have replied by now.

— NC

Labels: Candidates, FOIA

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Constitution, FOIA party

Any half-ass reporter can tell you what the major-party presidential candidates say about a topic. Let's get to the other guys.

Here's what Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate for president, says about the Freedom of Information Act.

From: mary@baldwin2008.com
Subject: Chuck Baldwin on FOIA
Date: July 14, 2008 4:53:30 PM MDT
To: ncarlisle@sltrib.com

Nate,

Chuck Baldwin strongly believes government should be transparent and devoid of secrecy, except in matters concerning bona fide national security issues. Never having filed a FOIA request, Baldwin maintains Americans who do seek information from government records and departments have the right to expect information in a reasonable amount of time.

Baldwin believes that excessive secrecy is not beneficial for the country and it encourages deceit. Chuck Baldwin would work to make the FOIA less cumbersome, with elected officials and governmental agencies acknowledging that they operate as employees of the American people and have no overiding right to hide matters relating to the operation of their governmental offices.

With estimates showing that upwards of 400,000* new secrets are created each year just at the TOP SECRET level, and estimates that the government has billions of pages of classified material, Baldwin espouses accountability that can only be achieved when government knows it cannot hide behind “classified” documents.

If you'd like any further clarification, let me know.

Sincerely,
Mary Starrett

Baldwin 2008

* This footnote is mine. That figure originated with a report from the Information Security Oversight Office for the year 1995.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the McCain and Obama campaigns to reply to my requests to give or clarify their positions on FOIA.

--nc

Labels: Candidates, FOIA

Monday, July 14, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:...

Of the two major presidential candidates, Barack Obama is the only one for whom I can find a position paper on the Freedom of Information Act and open government issues.

The paper, which you can find here, offers the following on FOIA.

...Barack Obama would restore the tradition of free information by issuing an Executive Order that information should be released unless an agency reasonably foresees harm to a protected interest.

Well, OK. But agencies are already supposed to release information unless it falls under numerous exemptions. Obama's position paper does not define a "protected interest."

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum that seemed to expand what one would call a "protected interest." The memo has been much maligned in the FOI world while some have said the directives are necessary to maintain national security. Would Obama rescind the memo?

On Thursday, I sent this e-mail to the Obama campaign.

I have read the Senator's position paper on the Freedom of Information Act. Can you please tell me what the candidate considers a "protected interest." Would he rescind the John Ashcroft memo restricting documents under FOIA?

Also, has Senator Obama ever filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act or a state record law? If so, what was the senator's experience?

I am not working on a deadline but would appreciate a response in the next week. Thank you.

I asked whether Obama has made FOI requests because . . . well, I just couldn't resist. I'll let you know what he says.

-- nc

Labels: Candidates, FOIA

Monday, July 7, 2008

'Missed Opportunity'

From the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government:

A just completed study by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government shows that federal departments and agencies made little progress in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, despite a two-year-old presidential directive to improve service. The report, “An Opportunity Lost”, says agencies cut staff and FOIA spending in 2007 and as a result failed to take advantage of a sharp fall off in FOIA requests to make significant reductions in the backlog of unprocessed requests.

For the report and more, go to www.cjog.net.

Labels: FOIA

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Kids' names

Twice this week, Tribune justice reporters had problems obtaining the most basic information about a victim: a name.

These weren't any victims. They were children. The respective police agencies thought that meant they should not just give out the information.

In the first case, a 17-year-old girl died in an ATV crash in Sanpete County. The sheriff's office declined to release her name and suggested we watch the obituaries. A central Utah radio station reported the name and I confirmed it with a telephone call to the teenager's family.

The second case was a 17-month-old girl who drowned in Sugar House Park. Salt Lake City police declined to give us the girl's name over the telephone, as they do most adult victims, and suggested we file an open-records request. I then spoke with an attorney for the city who told me I should file a record request when it's suggested I do so, but read me the name in this instance.

Government agencies are reluctant to discuss children, and I understand why. It's human nature to protect kids. Lawmakers in Utah and most states have codified the instinct by closing to the public documents in child welfare matters and some juvenile court cases. News outlets are protective, too. The Tribune typically does not name child victims or even criminal suspects who are children as the newspaper would adults.

But it's a different matter when a child dies. Utah law does not require a dead child name's be kept secret. Neither does federal law.

In 2006, the National Park Service refused to release the names of child drowning victims on Lake Powell. The Tribune made administrative appeals and it resulted in the Park Service making agency-wide regulations requiring name disclosure.

************************

And now some easy news

A few weeks ago, I wrote the city governments of Salt Lake City, Ogden, Logan, Orem, Provo, Cedar City and St. George and asked for any audits, conducted within the last two years, on their respective fire and police departments.

The requests were answered on time with the cities providing me the documents or telling me where I could find them. Yeah, so I didn't exactly ask for the Pentagon Papers, but with that many towns, I figured there would be one holdout and there was not.

-- nc

Labels: FOIA, GRAMA, secrecy, SLC

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Freedom of information, shredding

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

FOIA in the Internet Age

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

Friday, June 20, 2008

Go there to get here

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

Friday, June 13, 2008

LeRoy, Rulon and the FBI

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

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Richard Nixon: Saint of Open Records

This op-ed by historian and researcher Michael Dobbs is a great lament for more openness in American government and a fantastic explanation of why voters should ask candidates about transparency issues. But it's the last few paragraphs that blew me away!

Of all the U.S. presidents Dobbs has experienced, he credits Richard Nixon for his willingness to place historical records in the public domain. Nixon?

The guy who during Watergate refused to disclose just about anything, fired investigating attorneys general like they were Billy Martin and used the executive branch to try to intimidate The Washington Post out of doing its job? That Nixon?

The black and white photo, courtesy of Utah State Archives, is Nixon (center) campaigning in Utah in 1968 with Sen. Arthur Watkins and Gov. George D. Clyde .

-- nc

Labels: Candidates, FOIA

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

FOIA in Any Language

Want to know the annual budget for the Bulgarian Department of Transportation? . . . Assuming Bulgaria has a department of transportation.

Here's a Website that can help you find it. It's the National Freedom of Information Coalition's collection of international freedom of information laws.

And apparently the record laws in some countries can work as well as the ones we have here in the home of the free. I typed "Freedom of Information Act" into a Google News search engine on Friday. Articles from foreign news sites comprised almost the entire yield.

In a speech in February at an international conference on the right to public information, human rights advocate Diego Garcia Sayan said: ". . . more than half of the current (public records) laws worldwide were passed after 2000, showing the momentum that this new thinking has gained recently."

But the sunshine has not spread around the globe. The Carter Center, which sponsored the February conference, said:

"Numerous countries with once vibrant and robust access to information legislation are now in retreat, while the passage of new laws has slowed and implementation efforts are often insufficient. "

"Moreover, it remains unclear that the myriad benefits of the right to information are in fact reaching the most disadvantaged people and promoting the anticipated societal transformations."

-- nc

Labels: FOIA, NFOIC

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Turning FOIA into Fertilizer

There's lots of news coverage about the farm bill passed by both houses of Congress in veto-proof majorities. The agriculture policy blog, Mulch, this week shined light on a provision in the legislation creating a new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act.

The provision prohibits the disclosure of certain information provided by farmers who are applying for farm subsidies. A federal appeals court in February ordered such data released, Mulch reports, but this provision negates that ruling.

Farm subsidies have long been hot topics in agriculture. In Utah, such famously not-so-needy farmers as Larry H. Miller have received farm subsidies. The appellate ruling might have given public access to Miller's application and told us why he thought he deserved government aid.

"There are bureaucrats who feel this is something that should be kept private and there are a lot of farmers who feel that way," Ken Cook, Mulch's lead writer, told me in an interview.

Lots of other applications for government grants and aid are public records.

-- nc

Labels: FOIA

Friday, May 2, 2008

FOIA off the hook

Never mind trying to get documents and records from the government. How about giving me the right phone number?

Recently, I tried to check the status of two record requests I have pending with the FBI. I called the phone number for the FOIA Requester Service Center.

A gentlemen answered the phone and said I called the records management division. Things went awry from there.

This is not the phone number I should call to check on the status of my requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the man said.

So if that number is wrong, where should I call?

"I don't know, sir," was the reply.

The next day, FBI Public Liaison Nancy L. Steward called and was helpful in updating me on the status of my requests. Then I told her about what happened when I called the service center.

Steward called back again and said another section had someone incorrectly using the service center phone line. She said the problem would be fixed. I called the service center line on Monday and was able to check my request this time.

If you want to check on the status of your FOIA request to the FBI, the service center's telephone number is 540-868-4591. Steward's number is 540-868-4516.

— NC

Labels: FBI, FOIA

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Who Needs Sunshine?

On KSL-TV to speak about our newspaper's recent exposé on Sandy's hidden bonus program, anchor Bruce Lindsay asked me why the public should care about public records laws, since such statute mostly are utilized by journalists -- who, as he pointed out, aren't exactly breaking the mercury on the public's love-o-meter.

Here's one good reason: In Washington on Thursday a bi-partisan duo of congressmen introduced legislation that would provide healthcare to veterans who were unknowingly subjected to biological and chemical weapons tests.

Those tests, known as Project 112, were run secretly out of a Utah Army base for decades -- and denied for decades more, despite reports from participating veterans that they were being stricken with unusual diseases.

What shook loose the veil of secrecy -- and ultimately led to this proposed legislation? A Freedom of Information Request by veterans groups in support of service members who felt they'd been wronged.

-mdl

Labels: DOD, FOIA, Sandy

Sunday, April 27, 2008

"Perfecting your request"

Under a new Freedom of Information Act reform law signed by President Bush on New Year's Eve, federal agencies that don’t respond to FOIA requests within a 20-day period will face stiffer penalties.

As a reporter who routinely uses FOIA, and one who has grown accustomed to receiving responses to requests for public documents years after I ask, I am watching closely for signs of improvement in the system.

When I hadn't hear anything back from one defense agency after sending it a request for records on April 3, I figured that it might just be business as usual. Then, on April 24, I received a phone call. An official from the agency told me that there had been some confusion regarding who in her office was going to handle my request. She apologized and said that they would be "getting to it" as soon as possible.

"So, do you still want everything you asked for in the request?" the official asked me.

I told her I did.

The next day I received an e-mail from the official, which "documents the phone conversation we had on April 24, 2008, regarding the scope of your request."

The scope of my request?

"... the beginning of the 20-day statutory time frame is April 24, 2008, the date we perfected your request."

And just like that, a 20-day response window turned into a 40-day response window.

As overworked federal FOIA offices seek to stay within the confines of the new law, I'm expecting more "do you still want everything you asked for" calls and more follow-up e-mails with language such as "the day we perfected your request."

- mdl

Labels: DOD, FOIA

© Copyright 2008, The Salt Lake Tribune. All material found on Utah Online is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.

Feedback

The Tribune welcomes comments, thoughts, ideas, arguments, etc. Just keep it on topic and respectful, and have fun!