Second Quarter Impact Update
In reports past I’ve often led with good news about the Center for Independent Media’s measurable growth in online visits or reader posts. And, happily, we continue to have good news about growth, with visits to The Washington Independent, for example, jumping 15% over the past three months. Details on our quarterly traffic can be found in our Key Performance Indicator report, which tracks these statistics.
But what I’m especially pleased to present in this report is compelling evidence of our reporting’s impact. You can see it all across our network of news sites (Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C.) and in all of our primary beats, including the environment, health care, elections, civil liberties and human rights, immigration, the economy and finance, the budget, election protection, open government, and what we call “agents of intolerance.”
The list of stories we could cite here is a long one, but your time is valuable. So I’ve asked the editors to cull just a handful from the past quarter that illustrate the kind of work at the core of our mission: “impact journalism” -reporting that results in advancing the common good.
Cases in point:
The Michigan Messenger’s story on HIV-positive prisoners being barred from working in food service that resulted in the Michigan Department of Civil Rights launching a formal investigation into the policy.
The Iowa Independent’s investigation of coal ash hazards in the state that has led the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa to reexamine their coal ash disposal methods and consider new federal guidelines.
The Washington Independent’s coverage of the legal options for investigating Bush-era torture policies and officials who crafted them. Daphne Eviatar’s trenchant reporting sparked debate within the Senate Judiciary committee and resulted in a decision to hold hearings. Her stories also sparked the interest of other news outlets, such as The Rachel Maddow Show, which further amplified our coverage. You can follow Eviatar’s reporting and see its influence grow in the timeline accompanying our account of her story.
I encourage you to read all the summaries that follow and, if you have time, follow a few links to see how our reporters are developing impact stories. As always, I welcome your comments and questions, and thank you for your support. We couldn’t be making this progress without you.
Sincerely,
David
Agents of Intolerance
Hate Crime
The Washington Independent’s David Weigel exposed a bizarre, racially charged run-in with the law by Marcus Epstein, executive director of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo’s Team America PAC and a colleague of Bay Buchanan. Weigel provided the details in his second-day story:
“On July 7, 2007, Marcus Epstein had too much to drink and stumbled onto Georgetown’s scenic, shop-lined M Street, walking in no particular direction. At 7:15 p.m., he bumped into a black woman, called her a “nigger,” and struck her in the head with an open hand. An off-duty Secret Service agent was watching. Epstein “jogged away,” according to the agent’s affidavit, and when Epstein was finally chased down, he “continued to flail his arms while being taken into custody.”
Weigel was the first to report the details and context of the event. Although some blogs had started to talk about an arrest of a conservative activist in D.C., Weigel was first to explain that Epstein works with Pat and Bay Buchanan and Tom Tancredo-who had been pushing the “Sonia Sotomayor is a ‘racist’” meme on national television. Weigel also explained how Epstein has been a tolerated figure in prominent Washington conservative circles for years and was planning on attending University of Virginia Law School in the fall.
After Weigel posted several items on TWI about Epstein and his guilty plea in the case, TWI’s editor Laura McGann received an email from Jason Wu Trujillo, UVA Law’s Senior Assistant Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid saying: “Mr. Epstein is not currently enrolled at the University of Virginia School of Law, and I do not expect him to be an enrolled student in the future.”
When UVA was pressed, they said they could not disclose whether he had been admitted because of privacy guidelines. But based on Epstein’s public statements and on the University of Virginia’s carefully crafted response, it is clear that his offer had been revoked thanks to Weigel’s coverage, which was picked up widely on other blogs and broader media.
The narrow story also required Tancredo and the Buchanans to publicly reconcile tolerating a high-level racist on staff, while trying to sully the Sotomayor nomination by calling her a racist.
“Tom Tancredo Staffer Pleads Guilty to Karate-Chopping Black Woman” (6/1/09)
“Bay Buchanan Responds to Tancredo Speechwriter Hate Crime Scandal” (6/1/09)
“University of Virginia: Marcus Epstein Isn’t Coming Here” (6/1/09)
“Tancredo, Buchanan Bruised by Racist ‘Karate Chop’” (6/2/09)
“Bay Buchanan Speaks Out Against the ‘Lynching’ of Marcus Epstein” (6/5/09)
Civil Liberties and Human Rights
Torture Commissions
The impact of TWI investigative reporter Daphne Eviatar’s in-depth coverage of the legal options for investigating Bush-era torture policies and officials who crafted them has resulted in important, and ongoing, action on Capitol Hill. Her work sparked debate within the Senate Judiciary Committee, resulting in a decision by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to hold hearings on torture in the subcommittee he chairs. In the process of reporting this story, Eviatar has distinguished herself in covering all the legal avenues surrounding the issue.
How that story evolved over a period of five months is a lesson in how the Center for Independent Media is working to achieve its mission: “impact journalism.”
Timeline on Torture Hearings Coverage:
2/11/09: Daphne Eviatar begins writing about the truth commissions idea that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had begun to promote:
“Leahy’s Truth Commission Idea Gaining Steam”
2/19/09: Eviatar delivers a hard-hitting piece on the controversy surrounding Leahy’s idea
“Truth Commission Talk Sparks Conflict”
2/19/09: The same night her story runs in The Washington Independent, Eviatar appears on The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the commissions and their legal implications.
2/25/09: Eviatar is one of the few journalists to cover Leahy’s announcement that he plans to hold hearings:
“Leahy Announces Hearing Next Week on Truth Commissions”
2/26/09: Maddow refers to Eviatar’s work again (transcript available)
3/4/09: Eviatar writes a widely read post on how Republicans were actually making a stronger case than Leahy in calling for prosecutions, rather than simply truth commissions:
“Republicans Make Case for Bush Era Prosecutions”
3/4/09: Maddow picks up Eviatar’s widely read post about the GOP and prosecutions of Bush era officials
3/7/09: Joe Zogby, chief counsel to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), contacts Eviatar about her work. In a phone conversation, Zogby tells Eviatar that her writing has sparked controversy on the Judiciary Committee, with Durbin and Whitehouse in strong support of hearings on Bush-era crimes. According to Zogby, Leahy was wavering on the whole issue of hearings.
4/2/09: Eviatar reports that Leahy has backed away from truth commissions. She is the only reporter to raise the issue of the Judiciary Committee simply holding hearings on torture and Bush-era crimes:
“Leahy Admits Truth Commission Is Dead”
4/17/09: Eviatar writes that the time is ripe for a Judiciary Committee investigation:
“Now Is The Time for a Judiciary Committee investigation”
4/23/09: Eviatar reports that momentum is building to prosecute Bush officials for torture:
“Pressure Mounts for Torture Prosecutions”
4/29/09: Eviatar reports that Leahy has asked former Bush lawyer Jay Bybee to testify and speculates that this could be the beginning of a Judiciary Committee probe:
“Leahy Calls on Bybee to Testify”
5/4/09: Whitehouse’s press secretary sends Eviatar a note saying the senator has decided to hold hearings in the Judiciary Subcommittee that he chairs.
5/13/09: Whitehouse’s Judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight and the court holds a hearing on “What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration.” Eviatar reports:
“Hearing Lays Groundwork for Torture Prosecutions”
Torture and the FBI
While Eviatar reported on torture hearings, The Washington Independent’s national security reporter, Spencer Ackerman, began investigating the role of the FBI in torture. In the unfolding story uncovering how Bush-era torture policy was created and carried out, one thing was becoming clear: the FBI’s hands were not as clean as the bureau claimed. On May 12, Ackerman wrote a piece for The Washington Independent that raised questions about the testimony to be offered that week by a former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, who, until that point, had been painted heroically in the media. Soufan claimed in an op-ed piece in The New York Times that he and other FBI agents walked away from a CIA-led interrogation of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah when harsh interrogation techniques were introduced.
Anticipating that this would be the basis for Soufan’s testimony before Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s subcommittee hearing, (which TWI’s Daphne Eviatar was instrumental in getting underway), Ackerman went back through the public record to a 2008 Inspector General report that revealed Soufan indeed had walked away from that interrogation. However, what Soufan failed to mention in his op-ed, but was explained in the report, was that he went on to use very similar techniques in interrogating another suspected al-Qaeda operative just a few months later.
The day his story ran, Ackerman received email confirmation from one of Whitehouse’s staffers saying he had read the story in The Washington Independent. At the hearing the next day, Soufan voluntarily addressed the discrepancy pointed out in Ackerman’s piece-which was not reported anywhere else-in his opening statement. Though Soufan did his best to reconcile the issue, the FBI’s more nuanced record on torture was introduced into the congressional record, and the media and Whitehouse understood the context.
“FBI Agent’s Account of Interrogations Conflicts With Report” (5/12/09)
“Soufan on Torture” (5/13/09)
“Former FBI Agent Testifies to CIA Contractor Push for Harsh Interrogation” (5/13/09)
Indefinite Detentions
Ackerman and Eviatar also have taken the media lead in covering a closely related story: President Obama’s decision to hold onto Bush-era authority that grants the executive branch the broad power of preventive-or indefinite-detention. Ackerman reported that civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were appalled by the president’s initial recommendation to issue an executive order solidifying this power. Eviatar, meanwhile, obtained a copy of a letter sent to Obama and signed by prominent left-leaning legal scholars and lawyers supporting an executive order as the better alternative than going to Congress to ask for an entirely new regime.
Ackerman and Eviatar have shaped the debate over indefinite detention and will continue to do so.
“Debate Intensifies Over Preventive Detention” (7/2/09)
Civil Rights for HIV-positive inmates
An inquiry by The Michigan Messenger’s Todd A. Heywood into the legality of a Michigan Department of Corrections policy that bans HIV-positive inmates from working in prison food services has prompted the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (DCR) to launch a formal investigation into the policy, first instituted when Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm was attorney general. A corrections spokesman said there are fears that an inmate who is HIV positive could transmit the virus through food served to other inmates, though there is no scientific basis for those fears. Meanwhile, the lead counsel for the DCR said it was not aware of the state’s policy but that it clearly violates the American With Disabilities Act and would not hold up in court.
Economy
Foreclosures
The Minnesota Independent’s Andy Birkey conducted an exclusive analysis of foreclosure data across the state and discovered a telling intersection of the economic crisis with representative government: that more people are losing their homes where congressional representation is doing the least to help them. He found that while Rep. Michele Bachmann’s 6th district led the state in 2008 with 5,227 foreclosures and 1.8 percent of households in foreclosure, the second-term Republican voted against five key foreclosure relief bills. Brian Melendez, chair of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, immediately issued a release citing Birkey’s coverage and chastising Bachmann: “Rather than helping solve the problems facing her district, such as the crippling housing crisis, Bachmann spends her time focusing on her role as spokesperson for her party’s radical fringes.”
Impacts from Birkey’s reporting continue to be felt as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) cites his work in its ongoing political struggle with the right-wing senator. Later that month, ACORN slammed Bachmann for her opposition to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, specifically citing and crediting the facts uncovered by Birkey’s reporting. The group also called out Bachmann for falsely claiming that ACORN was under federal indictment for voter fraud. ACORN-MN’s Sunday Alabi said: “Michele Bachman’s district had more foreclosures than any other Minnesota Congressional district. She should focus on stopping predatory lending and foreclosures, not attacking the organizations.
“Bachmann’s district has Minnesota’s highest foreclosure rates” (4/6/09)
“Bachmann falsely stated ACORN faces criminal charges” (4/30/09)
Also in April, The Michigan Messenger’s Todd A. Heywood was looking into foreclosures, leading him to the case of distressed Lansing homeowner Melody Stratton. The 51-year-old resident had been engaged in a battle with her lender who initiated a process to put her house up for sheriff’s sale, despite good faith efforts to become current on her payments. Her efforts to get the lender to update her account with more accurate, current information about her payments had been met with silence from the lender, Washington Mutual (now part of Chase). Lansing Mayor Virgil Bernero was so outraged by Stratton’s case, as profiled in Heywood’s piece, that he contacted The Michigan Messenger to get his office in touch with Stratton to offer his assistance in the matter. Bernero called the state attorney general’s office, which arranged for Stratton to have a one-on-one meeting with her lender. The sheriff sale ultimately was postponed as Stratton worked to negotiate with her lender. Bernero said that Stratton’s case was an “outrage” and a “wake-up call.” He called for a Lansing foreclosure moratorium.
“Homeowners jump through hoops to avoid forclosure, but face more lender hurdles” (4/23/09)
“Lansing home owner gets foreclosure reprieve after intervention of state officials” (5/4/09)
Within a month of breaking the Stratton story, Heywood uncovered another important foreclosure case while profiling another struggling family: the fraudulent lending practices of Bretlin Home Mortgage of East Lansing that had been shut down by the state in 2007 and had been barred from operating in other states.
Heywood continued his probe and discovered that the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth’s Office of Financial and Insurance Services had referred 15 cases of alleged criminal mortgage fraud to the attorney general since Jan. 1, 2008, but AG Mike Cox has not acted on any of them. The attorney general’s office has refused to answer questions about the cases, which sparked ire from legislative Democrats. State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, vowed to call on State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, the Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold a hearing, with the aim of getting the attorney general to testify about the action his office has taken on the criminal complaints. State Rep. Mark Meadows, an East Lansing Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, also publicly pressured the attorney general’s office for answers He added that although his committee cannot compel Cox to testify, the full House has the authority to subpoena Cox, which was not expected to happen until after the July Fourth holiday.
“Family at risk of losing home fights fallout from questionable mortgage practices” (5/20/09)
“Whitmer says AG Cox needs to answer questions about inaction on alleged mortgage fraud cases” (6/1/09)
“Meadows: AG Cox should answer questions about action taken on mortgage fraud cases” (6/5/09)
Energy
Power Struggle
The Colorado Independent’s David O. Williams, who has been covering energy issues in the state, did a service for public awareness and the common good when he opened the Pandora’s box of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association in late March and early April.
He took the lid off on March 31:
“A coup attempt by radical greenies or a long-overdue transition to a more balanced, 21st-century energy policy? Depending on who you talk to, that’s the way the debate is being framed as Colorado’s largest rural electric co-op, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) faces one of the most critical-and contentious-board elections in recent memory.”
As Williams reported in a series of stories, the campaign heated up over “shenanigans” in the mailing of ballots and IREA-funded mailers to its 138,000 members. At the same time, debate over a a bill aimed at increasing co-ops’ energy efficiency prompted a tough stance from IREA. Spokesman and former Republican State Sen. William Schroeder claimed that a bill aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of co-ops violated IREA’s “free speech and the right to dissent,” charging that the Legislature was punishing IREA for its past resistance to conservation measures.
Perhaps having heard enough, the director of Environment Colorado, Pam Kiely, said that her group had been aware of some of the issues raised, like the co-op’s climate change denial and board struggles, but it lacked an “objective third party” to investigate and give credence to its concerns.
Follow-up: When all was said if not done, incumbents made it a clean sweep.
“Power struggle: Colorado’s largest electric co-op split over renewable energy”
(3/31/09)
“Rural electric co-op accused of board-election shenanigans” (4/1/09)
“Rural co-ops duke it out over bill to allow tiered electricity rates” (4/7/09)
“Anti-renewable IREA says conservation bill violates its ‘right to dissent’” (4/8/09)
“IREA board incumbents pull plug on green challengers” (4/24/09)
Environment
Iowa’s Toxic Coal Ash Dumps
Ever since a billion-gallon wave of toxic coal ash burst from a Tennessee power plant’s containment pond in December, The Iowa Independent’s Jason Hancock has been investigating the dangers of coal ash, focusing his attention on four disposal sites where coal ash is being stored in unmonitored and unlined facilities raising questions about groundwater and health safety. He has effected a demonstrable and promising impact on public safety.
In May, two months after Hancock called attention to the four sites, the government released a report kept from the public for seven years by the Bush Administration that revealed people who live near such sites have a one in 50 chance of developing cancer. In June, he discovered that a leading opponent of efforts to reform Iowa’s dumping laws has been the University of Iowa, which along with Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa is among the state’s biggest producers and dumpers of toxic coal ash. The state had proposed updating the laws to require that the dumps used by the schools include a protective lining and groundwater monitoring to ensure that toxins aren’t leaching into the water supply. Hancock uncovered a letter that the University of Iowa sent to state regulators last year, arguing that such reforms would be too expensive and that the rules should be changed only if an existing threat to the public had already been identified. The University of Iowa refused to answer Hancock’s questions for the story. But within hours after Hancock’s story appeared online, the university issued a statement that it would re-examine its disposal methods and was taking into consideration new federal research on coal ash disposal.
Days after that announcement, another leading dumper of coal ash, Iowa State University, called a meeting with the owner of the dump that holds the university’s coal ash to discuss environmental-safety questions raised by Hancock’s reporting.
The following week Iowa lawmakers start taking notice. The chairmen of the State House and Senate environmental committees begin to publicly pressure state regulatory agencies to hold public hearings on the dangers of coal ash disposal. Specifically, State Sen. Dennis Black (D-Grinnell) and state Rep. Donovan Olson (D-Boone) say enough concerns regarding disposal of the toxic ash have become public to warrant Iowa’s Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) to conduct hearings on tougher regulations.
A key member of the State Senate environmental committee told Hancock that he was only aware of the issue of coal ash dumping because of The Iowa Independent’s reporting. He added that EPC should have brought the issue to the committee’s attention, but the Independent did it instead.
Follow-up: Besides the direct impact his reporting is yielding, Hancock’s reporting also is helping environmental groups make progress. Shortly after Hancock’s coverage of the issue began in March, Iowa’s Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) called on Plains Justice, an environmental justice organization, to give the state regulators a presentation on coal ash. This invitation marked a significant shift in position, considering that for months EPC said it would not revisit the state’s dumping laws.
In June, Plains Justice made its presentation to state regulators, describing the public health risks associated with coal ash disposal in quarries and mines and arguing that a system of standardized groundwater monitoring should be mandated. Legislators have since indicated an interest in introducing legislation that would codify such changes next year.
“University of Iowa helped derail coal ash regulations” (6/4/09)
“University of Iowa exploring new coal ash disposal methods” (6/4/09)
“ISU will revisit risks of Waterloo coal ash dump” (6/9/09)
“Legislators call for public hearing on coal ash disposal” (6/15/09)
“Group calls on state to mandate monitoring at coal ash sites” (6/16/09)
Michigan’s Walleyes, Water, and Dioxin
The Michigan Messenger’s most recent environmental impact story began with a walleye festival.
Detailing the toxic dangers facing those participating in the Walleye Fest in Saginaw County Eartha Jane Melzeer’s coverage caused a wave of public pressure from environmental groups to get Dow Chemical, the state Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect the public from the risks of dioxin exposure posed by the event.
The immediate fallout from her initial stories included:
- a request to the EPA from the environmental nonprofit Lone Tree Council to stop Dow Chemical-the source of the Saginaw River watershed’s dioxin contamination-from sponsoring such fishing competitions, because the events suggest the river and its fish are safe;
- an appeal from the Sierra Club to Dow to block the festival from donating fish caught at the event to local food pantries, as event organizers had planned;
- an EPA advisory to reporters on the need for people to have current and accurate information when making decisions about eating local fish;
- an accelerated roll-out of the EPA’s $75,000 grant to the Michigan Department of Community Health to make sure that vulnerable populations such as women of childbearing age, children, and people who fish because they need food are better informed about the potential risks of eating fish.
Melzer’s continued reporting on Dow Chemical’s dioxin contamination in the Saginaw River watershed revealed a major error in one of the most heavily scrutinized documents a company can file with the U.S. government. Melzer discovered that in a proxy filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Dow had misstated Michigan’s advisory for walleye caught downstream from its Midland plant, calling walleye a “safe fish for families” and citing incorrect information about safe fish consumption.
An amended SEC filing was submitted, but as Melzer pointed out, it contained some of the same misstatements about the state’s fish advisories. An official with the state Department of Community Health confirmed that the information was still false.
Meanwhile, Sanford Lewis, an attorney representing the Sisters of Mercy, a group of Dow shareholders who often press for environmental reforms, said he would file a formal complaint with the SEC over the incorrect walleye advisory information. “The company has appeared in a series of high-profile negative media stories related to the contamination,” he said, referring to Melzer’s reporting. “The reputational damage to the company is significant, and suggests a resolution to this issue is long overdue.”
Since then, other stakeholders have confirmed that they have filed complaints with the SEC. But the Saginaw River water contamination story doesn’t end there.
Enter the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with a navigational dredging project in the river-and another important story for Melzer.
In mid-June, she reported that the project was stirring up toxic sediments and sending the poison toward the water supply for Bay City in Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay where no monitoring or testing was being done to protect the city’s water supply. In her story, she noted the EPA’s response to citizen concerns:
“I can understand why people would be concerned,” EPA Superfund manager Wendy Carney, tells Melzer in a phone interview. “But there are a lot of issues out there. We as an agency need to consider all resources and where our priorities should be placed. There are a number of issues that people are concerned about.”
Concerned Michiganders immediately began a letter-writing campaign to the EPA demanding that the water be tested. The form letters cited and included a link to Melzer’s story.
Two days after Melzer’s first story ran, EPA officials at an open house at its Saginaw Valley State University changed course and publicly committed to ensuring that fish advisory signs with updated consumption warnings were installed along the river. Although Dow Chemical had earlier come to an agreement with the state to post the fish advisories, the state had never been able to enforce the deal. The EPA said it would fund the signs if Dow doesn’t.
“Dow-sponsored Walleye Fest to donate contaminated fish to the poor” (4/22/09)
“State warns that Walleye Fest participants aren’t being properly warned of toxic dangers” (4/23/09)
“EPA steps up communication about fish consumption risks as Walleye Fest begins” (4/24/09)
“As it sponsors Bay City fish fest, Dow claims ignorance on toxic walleye advisories” (5/21/09)
“EPA downplays dredging risk to Bay City water supply” (6/15/09)
“EPA officials pledge transparency with long-term dioxin cleanup plans” (6/18/09)
Open Government
In New Mexico, Follow the Money
For months the issue of open government and campaign finance has dominated the investigative work of CIM’s team at The New Mexico Independent. Among the top stories that have shaped public debate and impacted events are the three investigative reports below:
1. In late April, Heath Haussamen broke the news that Steven Rattner, head of President Barack Obama’s auto-bailout program and a figure linked to a New York pension scandal that has ties to New Mexico, gave $20,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson’s gubernatorial campaigns. Haussamen’s discovery revealed yet another possible pay-to-play scheme: Richardson heads the State Investment Council (SIC), which manages the state’s investments. As Rattner was giving money to Richardson’s campaigns, SIC was voting to invest $20 million with the firm Rattner headed. Haussamen’s scoop was the week’s top story, netting links from Talking Points Memo and Slate.
“Embattled Obama exec Rattner gave $20K to Richardson campaigns” (4/20/09)
2. At the same time, Marjorie Childress reviewed the contribution books submitted by Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez’s re-election campaign in his bid to qualify for public financing. Her investigation revealed that 52 percent of the books were filled by city employees, who made up 42 percent of the mayor’s volunteer base. While not illegal, the practice of soliciting city workers to raise funds for the mayor “leaves [Chavez] open to criticism from his challengers that he’s leaning on people who rely on or owe him,” said one political observer. Local NBC affiliate KOB picked up the story and broadcast its own version, crediting NMI.
“Incumbency advantage powers early support for ABQ Mayor Chavez” (4/20/09)
3. In another exclusive, Trip Jennings obtained records that revealed Marc Correra, the son of a Richardson confidant, made at least $3 million on investment deals he brokered for the state’s embattled Educational Retirement Board, whose suspicious and costly transactions are now the subject of a federal probe. Correra also likely made an additional $2 million by arranging another risky investment that lost the state some $90 million, the documents showed. Such hefty finders’ fees have become controversial in New Mexico, where many state investments have been facilitated by agents close to the governor.
“Correra made millions more in Education Investment Bd deals” (5/5/09)
Continuing his probe, Jennings requested documents that would have divulged with whom Gov. Richardson met before the state made investments that ultimately cost New Mexico $90 million. The governor’s office denied the request. In response, Jennings analyzed Richardson’s rationale for denying the claim-that his calendars, datebooks, and other documents are protected by executive privilege. Jennings found that although executive privilege is meant to protect the advice given to the governor by advisers, just how far the privilege extends is unclear. “The scope of the privilege is undecided,” the attorney general’s chief deputy said. “A court has not determined that disclosure of who the governor met with is or is not confidential.”
“Richardson’s office denies NMI records request citing ‘executive privilege’” (6/10/09)
Separation of Church and State
Andy Birkey’s reporting played a key role in a complaint filed in late June with the U.S. Department of Justice about the faith-based group Teen Challenge Minnesota. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed the complaint with Attorney General Eric Holder on June 24, arguing that $235,000 in federal earmarks set aside by U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad for Teen Challenge, a Christian chemical dependency program, should be revoked. The group cited Birkey’s December 2008 report that was first to call the earmarks into question, noting that Teen Challenge’s programming was explicitly evangelical. Birkey’s reporting was the only third-party source cited in the complaint.
“Up in smoke: Will Ramstad’s faith-based earmark hurt his chances to win drug czar post” (12/9/08)
“MN Teen Challenge target of church-state complaint” (6/24/09)
Colorado State University’s New Chancellor
A coalition of watchdog groups was spurred by the reporting of The Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic to file a complaint with Colorado State University (CSU) over its closed-door selection of its new chancellor.
In April, Tomasic reported that, despite layoffs, a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall and another round of tuition hikes, -the state’s largest land-grant university-was creating a new system-wide chancellor position and was filling the vacancy in private. He found that the search committee tasked with finding the new chancellor refused to release the names of applicants and that the specific deliberations of CSU’s board to create the post were not reflected in the board’s public minutes.
The value of Tomasic’s reporting became evident about two weeks later, when the search committee gave the appointment to one of its own members, CSU Board Vice President Joe Blake, who played a key role in the decision to establish the chancellorship. Blake’s selection came on the same day lawmakers were set to vote on a bill that would have set transparency guidelines on university leadership selection in the state and for the CSU chancellor search in particular. The sudden announcement of Blake as sole finalist “ended the urgency” to try to pass the new law, the bill’s sponsor said.
Tomasic also managed to get on the record the search committee’s only “no” vote. Tom Farley, a CSU board member from Pueblo, told Tomasic that the search process was flawed and that he cast his vote against Blake due to the lack of transparency in the process. “It was a struggle all along to open up the process. We failed at the start, and we failed at the end,” he said.
Weeks later, Colorado Ethics Watch, Colorado Common Cause, and New Era Colorado asked the CSU governing board to restart the search for chancellor candidates, opening up the process to students, faculty, and the community and working to restore integrity to the search. The three watchdog groups had never before formally worked in concert on an issue, and they said that their action was based not on any legislation or litigation but on Tomasic’s reporting.
“Despite secrecy, budget crunch, CSU chancellor search presses forward” (4/23/09)
“CSU board member Blake selected chancellor” (5/6/09)
“CSU board member says chancellor search process was flawed” (5/8/09)
“Watchdog coalition demands CSU halt chancellor hire, wants search restarted” (5/22/09)
Colorado Ethics Commission
Six weeks after an investigation by Ernest Luning found repeated violations of the Colorado Open Meetings Law by the Independent Ethics Commission, the state’s top ethics panel took dramatic steps toward greater transparency and disclosure.
The story began unfolding when, in May, Luning discovered that the ethics commission spent 85 percent of its meetings behind closed doors, discussing complaints and the conduct of public officials and government employees. The secret meetings included one that decided the fate of Rep. Mike Coffman, former Colorado secretary of state and current congressman, who was under review by the panel. An attorney who specializes in First Amendment law characterized the numerous closed-door sessions as “illegal meetings.”
Upon publication of Luning’s story, Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW) issued a statement calling on the panel to set an example for government transparency rather than “conducting official business in secret” and “stealthily conduct[ing its] business.”
CEW then filed suit to obtain ethics commission documents that would show what advice had been solicited from the panel by lawmakers and public employees, and what if any action had been taken. Luning also filed his own records request, asking for documents pertaining to the decision surrounding Coffman. When the panel refused, TCI undertook a pro bono lawsuit.
At its June 17 meeting, even though the TCI lawsuit was still unresolved, the IEC took dramatic measures to become more transparent. That day, the panel:
- discussed in public ethical questions under consideration by the panel;
- recorded votes by commissioners to go into closed, executive session, as required by state law;
- listed ethical complaints filed with the commission against public officials before convening in private to discuss whether the commission should pursue them;
- added an agenda item for public comment for its regular meetings;
- released to the public records the commission had gone to court to keep secret, including letters from lawmakers and government employees asking for guidance on ethical questions;
- posted a public notice listing specific lawsuits filed against the commission which commissioners plan to discuss with their attorneys behind closed doors.
“Legal questions surround secret meetings of state ethics commission” (5/6/09)
“Watchdogs: Ethics panel challenging ‘all legal boundaries’ to meet in secret” (5/8/09)
“Ethics commission says it won’t turn over recordings of secret meetings”
(5/8/09)
“Judge rules state ethics panel can’t conceal documents from public view”
(5/15/09)
“Colorado Independent sues state ethics panel over secret meetings”
(5/22/09)
“State’s top ethics panel moved toward more open, transparent procedures”
(6/19/09)