Current Gaylord Weather
PhoneGuide
Search the PhoneGuide:
Directory
Archives
Calendar
Classifieds
Search Gaylord Herald Times Classifieds:
Off the Record: Protecting public’s right to know
Friday, September 19, 2008 3:05 PM EDT
Public officials who have something to hide cringe when they hear the term FOIA, especially in our state. In fact, the officials, themselves, often go into hiding when Big Daddy FOIA comes calling.
That’s what the infamous EX-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick did when the Detroit Free Press put FOIA to work in exposing his scandalous, criminal activities. He tried to cover up his dirty laundry, but even the almighty King Kwame (in his mind) wound up facing 10 felony charges, eventually pleading guilty to only two of them. Unfortunately, he ended up with a slap on the wrist, in my opinion. At least he’s “outta there” as mayor and hopefully will never be heard from again (unless he’s the defendant in another criminal case).
In case you don’t know, FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act. The law in Michigan, coupled with the Open Meetings Act, is a very effective tool in opening public doors in our state. Michigan’s version of the two laws is among the toughest in the nation.
You have to go back to the days of former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly to get to the root of FOIA. He was a staunch advocate, and believe me he followed it to the “letter of the law.” For years, he teamed up with the Michigan Press Association (MPA) in making sure public bodies throughout the state didn’t step out of line attempting to do business in secret behind closed doors.
Today in Michigan, MPA attorney Dawn Hertz is generally considered the leading expert in FOIA and the Open meetings Act. She should be. She has been involved in literally hundreds of cases representing MPA as well as individual newspapers throughout the state.
That’s what the infamous EX-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick did when the Detroit Free Press put FOIA to work in exposing his scandalous, criminal activities. He tried to cover up his dirty laundry, but even the almighty King Kwame (in his mind) wound up facing 10 felony charges, eventually pleading guilty to only two of them. Unfortunately, he ended up with a slap on the wrist, in my opinion. At least he’s “outta there” as mayor and hopefully will never be heard from again (unless he’s the defendant in another criminal case).
In case you don’t know, FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act. The law in Michigan, coupled with the Open Meetings Act, is a very effective tool in opening public doors in our state. Michigan’s version of the two laws is among the toughest in the nation.
You have to go back to the days of former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly to get to the root of FOIA. He was a staunch advocate, and believe me he followed it to the “letter of the law.” For years, he teamed up with the Michigan Press Association (MPA) in making sure public bodies throughout the state didn’t step out of line attempting to do business in secret behind closed doors.
Today in Michigan, MPA attorney Dawn Hertz is generally considered the leading expert in FOIA and the Open meetings Act. She should be. She has been involved in literally hundreds of cases representing MPA as well as individual newspapers throughout the state.
- Advertisement -
I know that for a fact because she represented my former newspaper, the Gaylord Herald Times, in a number of cases during my 40-year stint there. As a publisher with a newsman’s mentality, my driving force was the public’s right to know. Over the years, in cases we suspected violated the public’s right to know, we took on the county, city, schools, townships and prosecutor when they tried to withhold information or operate in secret behind closed doors.
Because of my FOIA passion, a recent article in my favorite newspaper about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin intrigued me. Our former editor in Gaylord, Vicki Naegele (1988-94), was featured in a recent interview about her experience with Palin. Naegele served as managing editor of The Frontiersman in Wasilla, Alaska, the small town where Palin served on the city council and later as mayor.
In the first place, according to Naegele, Palin was swept into the mayor’s office due mainly to strong support from the National Rifle Association and Republican Party. That’s significant because it was a nonpartisan election. As Naegele commented: “The people of Wasilla had never seen a race like that. Things that really had nothing to do with being mayor crept into — and were a deciding factor — in that election.”
Naegele recalled that right after Palin took office she had lunch with the newspaper’s reporters and even bought them flowers. However, the smell of flowers quickly dissipated, according to the editor.
Shortly after “lunch and roses,” Palin used her new found political power to get rid of several city employees because, as Naegele put it, “she didn’t feel like she had their support.”
Naegele’s newspaper took a strong stance against Palin’s strong arm tactics because the mayor did not provide a solid explanation for her decision. The mayor, in turn, instituted a gag order against The Frontiersman, which dictated that no city department head was allowed to give out information to the press without her permission (not a good sign). However, Naegele noted that over a period of time things calmed down at Wasilla City Hall.
The Herald Times asked Naegele how she thought all this might play out on the national level or was it simply a short-term local issue that happened a long time ago: “It’s just a narrow piece of the whole pie. I hope she’s learned from this experience. Whether that’s going to show what kind of vice president she’d make, I wouldn’t stretch it too far. Everyone grows, and I trust she has, too.”
Let’s all hope Palin’s retaliatory practice doesn’t carry over to Washington, if she lands there. She won’t be dealing with just a small-town newspaper in that place. Can you imagine what would happen if she put a gag order out against the Washington press corps? Ouch!
Vicki having “graduated” from the Grisso school of the public’s right to know, it’s no surprise to me she didn’t back down to a bouquet of flowers. I know this, also. She would not have hesitated to bring out the FOIA artillery if there was an indication Palin had violated the law.
The Alaska governor may have stopped “the bridge to nowhere,” is a true hockey mom who screams at the refs, and is an expert marksman who can the shoot the eyes out of toad at 100 yards. However, these “qualifications” to be vice president of the United States do not exempt her from honoring and adhering to the public’s right to know.
If she is elected vice president and adheres to these principles (also known as laws) everything will be just fine in the world of FOIA.
— Jim Grisso is publisher emeritus of the Gaylord Herald Times. You may reach him by writing to P.O. Box 598, Gaylord, MI 49734 or by e-mail, jim@gaylordheraldtimes.com
Because of my FOIA passion, a recent article in my favorite newspaper about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin intrigued me. Our former editor in Gaylord, Vicki Naegele (1988-94), was featured in a recent interview about her experience with Palin. Naegele served as managing editor of The Frontiersman in Wasilla, Alaska, the small town where Palin served on the city council and later as mayor.
In the first place, according to Naegele, Palin was swept into the mayor’s office due mainly to strong support from the National Rifle Association and Republican Party. That’s significant because it was a nonpartisan election. As Naegele commented: “The people of Wasilla had never seen a race like that. Things that really had nothing to do with being mayor crept into — and were a deciding factor — in that election.”
Naegele recalled that right after Palin took office she had lunch with the newspaper’s reporters and even bought them flowers. However, the smell of flowers quickly dissipated, according to the editor.
Shortly after “lunch and roses,” Palin used her new found political power to get rid of several city employees because, as Naegele put it, “she didn’t feel like she had their support.”
Naegele’s newspaper took a strong stance against Palin’s strong arm tactics because the mayor did not provide a solid explanation for her decision. The mayor, in turn, instituted a gag order against The Frontiersman, which dictated that no city department head was allowed to give out information to the press without her permission (not a good sign). However, Naegele noted that over a period of time things calmed down at Wasilla City Hall.
The Herald Times asked Naegele how she thought all this might play out on the national level or was it simply a short-term local issue that happened a long time ago: “It’s just a narrow piece of the whole pie. I hope she’s learned from this experience. Whether that’s going to show what kind of vice president she’d make, I wouldn’t stretch it too far. Everyone grows, and I trust she has, too.”
Let’s all hope Palin’s retaliatory practice doesn’t carry over to Washington, if she lands there. She won’t be dealing with just a small-town newspaper in that place. Can you imagine what would happen if she put a gag order out against the Washington press corps? Ouch!
Vicki having “graduated” from the Grisso school of the public’s right to know, it’s no surprise to me she didn’t back down to a bouquet of flowers. I know this, also. She would not have hesitated to bring out the FOIA artillery if there was an indication Palin had violated the law.
The Alaska governor may have stopped “the bridge to nowhere,” is a true hockey mom who screams at the refs, and is an expert marksman who can the shoot the eyes out of toad at 100 yards. However, these “qualifications” to be vice president of the United States do not exempt her from honoring and adhering to the public’s right to know.
If she is elected vice president and adheres to these principles (also known as laws) everything will be just fine in the world of FOIA.
— Jim Grisso is publisher emeritus of the Gaylord Herald Times. You may reach him by writing to P.O. Box 598, Gaylord, MI 49734 or by e-mail, jim@gaylordheraldtimes.com
2 comment(s)
MikeHeath wrote on Sep 20, 2008 3:34 PM:
" I always appreciate your perspective Mr. Grisso! You have been a true champion of transparent government and for that I applaud your contributions. While one party trashes an aggressive, skeptical media whose aggressive serves the public’s right to know, we should all respect how important it is that our media takes the time to fight for transparency and not give up in sight of public vilification.
Regarding Gov. Palin and transparency in government: I believe we have three examples of what to expect if Palin completed a McCain term as President.
Troopergate - Gov. Palin has lawyered-up pretty heavily and appears to have succeeded in delaying hearings until after the election. In fact, she’s made the same basic legal arguments as our current President as he resists congressional oversight into his administration’s activities – violating our constitutional ideal of checks and balances and preventing the public from its right to know the activities of its executive branch. A second example is that Gov. Palin has had only one legitimate interview since being nominated. That is unprecedented in American history and particularly disturbing given she was a relative unknown until a few short weeks ago. The third example is that Gov. Palin has proven herself to be a serial liar, with twelve recorded whoppers all within a few short weeks, many of which she continuously repeats even after media watchdogs have corrected the record. All evidence points towards a Palin presidency that is equal or more opaque than the current administration, which has presided over the most secretive administration in modern American history.
One of the two presidential candidates has made transparent government a plank his general platform, including the publication of formal proposals that will significantly enhance transparency of government by vastly increasing what is published online along with other initiatives. Here are Senator Obama’s proposals: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#transparent-democracy
While Sen. Obama frequently discusses proposals to increase transparency in government, including his verbal rejection of the concept of a unitary executive, I have not heard whether Senator McCain proposes more transparency or not nor have I discovered any mention of transparency on Sen. McCain’s website.
It is my humble opinion that Sen. McCain would administrate a much more transparent government than the current administration though we do not have McCain on the record regarding his views of a unitary executive, the legal argument our current President makes to avoid public scrutiny and congressional oversight from him or his Administration. As an aside, if we conflate Obama’s proposal to publish all earmarks on-line in any easy to categorize and filter database, by coupling it with McCain’s commitment to slash earmarks, the taxpayer would have the best of both worlds. Maybe the public will win on both as these candidates go through the debate process and are forced to concede on some of the superior points of their opponent.
Also, regarding your comment,
“The Alaska governor may have stopped the bridge to nowhere,”
while not technically untrue, I believe this mischaracterizes what we know. Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs continually validate the fact that Gov. Palin is not responsible for stopping the Bridge To Nowhere as she continuously claims even after the record has been set straight, in terms of how she frames it with her comment, “I told them no”. In fact she actually advocated for these funds for the purpose of the bridge during and immediately after her campaign for Gov.; it was only after the U.S. Congress took so much public heat and re-allocated the funds from the Bridge to unallocated funds for Alaska did Palin follow popular opinion to the side of the “no’s”. A true budget hawk who cares about federal taxpayer funds, like Senators McCain and Tom Coburn R-OK, or Rep. Ron Paul R-TX, would have refused the earmark money; however our tax dollars for the bridge were still sent to Alaska, only now with no congressional oversight as to how that money was / will be spent. So while Gov. Palin is bragging about something she didn’t do, our tax dollars could have, or might be, spent on an even bigger boondoggle than the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin is also on the record supporting the Road to Nowhere, which has consumed $100,000,000 in federal taxpayer dollars to connect two towns whose populations total 2400 and 870. "
Regarding Gov. Palin and transparency in government: I believe we have three examples of what to expect if Palin completed a McCain term as President.
Troopergate - Gov. Palin has lawyered-up pretty heavily and appears to have succeeded in delaying hearings until after the election. In fact, she’s made the same basic legal arguments as our current President as he resists congressional oversight into his administration’s activities – violating our constitutional ideal of checks and balances and preventing the public from its right to know the activities of its executive branch. A second example is that Gov. Palin has had only one legitimate interview since being nominated. That is unprecedented in American history and particularly disturbing given she was a relative unknown until a few short weeks ago. The third example is that Gov. Palin has proven herself to be a serial liar, with twelve recorded whoppers all within a few short weeks, many of which she continuously repeats even after media watchdogs have corrected the record. All evidence points towards a Palin presidency that is equal or more opaque than the current administration, which has presided over the most secretive administration in modern American history.
One of the two presidential candidates has made transparent government a plank his general platform, including the publication of formal proposals that will significantly enhance transparency of government by vastly increasing what is published online along with other initiatives. Here are Senator Obama’s proposals: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#transparent-democracy
While Sen. Obama frequently discusses proposals to increase transparency in government, including his verbal rejection of the concept of a unitary executive, I have not heard whether Senator McCain proposes more transparency or not nor have I discovered any mention of transparency on Sen. McCain’s website.
It is my humble opinion that Sen. McCain would administrate a much more transparent government than the current administration though we do not have McCain on the record regarding his views of a unitary executive, the legal argument our current President makes to avoid public scrutiny and congressional oversight from him or his Administration. As an aside, if we conflate Obama’s proposal to publish all earmarks on-line in any easy to categorize and filter database, by coupling it with McCain’s commitment to slash earmarks, the taxpayer would have the best of both worlds. Maybe the public will win on both as these candidates go through the debate process and are forced to concede on some of the superior points of their opponent.
Also, regarding your comment,
“The Alaska governor may have stopped the bridge to nowhere,”
while not technically untrue, I believe this mischaracterizes what we know. Factcheck.org and other media watchdogs continually validate the fact that Gov. Palin is not responsible for stopping the Bridge To Nowhere as she continuously claims even after the record has been set straight, in terms of how she frames it with her comment, “I told them no”. In fact she actually advocated for these funds for the purpose of the bridge during and immediately after her campaign for Gov.; it was only after the U.S. Congress took so much public heat and re-allocated the funds from the Bridge to unallocated funds for Alaska did Palin follow popular opinion to the side of the “no’s”. A true budget hawk who cares about federal taxpayer funds, like Senators McCain and Tom Coburn R-OK, or Rep. Ron Paul R-TX, would have refused the earmark money; however our tax dollars for the bridge were still sent to Alaska, only now with no congressional oversight as to how that money was / will be spent. So while Gov. Palin is bragging about something she didn’t do, our tax dollars could have, or might be, spent on an even bigger boondoggle than the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin is also on the record supporting the Road to Nowhere, which has consumed $100,000,000 in federal taxpayer dollars to connect two towns whose populations total 2400 and 870. "
If you have registered, enter your Member ID/Password to comment.
You must agree to the Terms of Use and registerwith a valid email address to post comments.
MikeHeath wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:07 AM:
1) Just this past Friday, Vice President Cheney loses fight to destroy records, I would assume he’ll appeal: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/21/federal-judge-orders-cheney-to-preserve-vp-records/
2) The Palin administration remains committed to a Bridge to Nowhere using as much as $73,000,000 in federal earmarks: http://www.newsweek.com/id/159421/output/print
Gov. Palin’s also spent millions of federal tax dollars on a road leading to the Bridge, even after the Bridge funds were reallocated which is also noted in the above Newsweek article.
I’d say Mr. Grisso’s fight for a transparent government where the press has access is still a fierce one. "