Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transparency. Show all posts

20 October 2008

John McCain's Medical Records : The X Files


Why is McCain stonewalling?
By Larry Ray / October 18, 2008

There are only a couple of weeks before we vote for a new president. Americans deserve to see the current medical records of both candidates before making up their minds. Senator McCain still refuses to provide his current medical records. Senator Obama fully complied just a few months ago, undergoing a complete medical checkup. His publicly available records describe Obama as “in excellent health, lean and muscular with no excess body fat.” Senator Biden released a current update, Monday, Oct. 20th, and appears in good health for a guy his age. Sarah Palin, has released no medical information on herself whatsoever.

In McCain’s U.S. Navy aircraft carrier flying days, passing a flight medical exam was easy for him. But as we get older it can become harder to pass that annual flight physical. I am only a few years younger than Sen. McCain and am a private pilot, so I know all about having a "current medical." I am in decent health but am not "current." McCain is tough. But it is also tough to imagine being shot out of the air by an enemy missile, surviving a bail-out with broken bones, then enduring five and a half years of torture as a POW some 41 years ago and today being in a third remission from melanoma cancer. All that could certainly make getting a clean bill of health tougher, but not impossible. I have several pilot buddies McCain's age who are "current" and still having a dandy time flying. But none are running for president.

Remember why the pilot and co-pilot on commercial airliners eat different in-flight meals off the menu? If one meal is tainted, like bad tuna salad, both pilots don't become incapacitated, leaving one to fly and land the plane safely. But we are not talking about toxic tuna salad here. And we are not talking about United Airlines. We're talking about the United States, with John McCain as our possible president and his VP candidate, Sarah Palin, as our potential co-pilot. Showing us all he has a clean bill of health would clearly help the 72 year old McCain's faltering campaign right now. It's fair enough to ask why he doesn't. Ms. Palin's lungs do seem to be in tip top condition, but that's all we have been permitted to know about her state of physical health.

While McCain invokes his discredited folk hero, “Joe the Plumber” and Palin whips up “the base” with her nasal, hate-tinged talking points, the noise they are making still can not drown out that basic question in voters’ minds, “Is candidate McCain healthy enough to take over an America which has just lost power in its engines and is flying in a fog of uncertainty? And what about his co-pilot?”

Source / The iHandbill

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

15 July 2008

A Bit of Justice Concerning BushCo Secrecy


White House Loses Appeal to Keep Visitor Logs Secret
by Jason Leopold / July 15, 2008

The White House lost an appeal to keep secret visitor logs containing the identities of evangelical Christian leaders who visited the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s home, according to an opinion issued Friday by a federal appeals court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the Bush administration’s claims that Secret Service visitor logs are the property of President George W. Bush and are not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The White House assumed control of the visitor logs when watchdog groups and the media sought access to the files.

The panel of three appeals court judges essentially upheld a December decision by a U.S. District Court judge who said the visitor logs were public documents subject to the FOIA. They sent the case back to District Court Judge Royce Lamberth for consideration

“At that point, the court may agree with the agency, allowing it to withhold the requested records, in which case the government would have no cause to appeal,” says the appeals court’s opinion.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the Department of Homeland Security in 2006 for access to the records after the Secret Service — on orders from Cheney — refused to process CREW’s FOIA request. The Secret Service was formerly operated by the Treasury Department. It became part of the Homeland Security Department in March 2003.

The Bush administration had argued in its appeal that a Supreme Court ruling issued in 2004 “warning that courts should hesitate before requiring the President or Vice President to “bear the burden” of “asserting specific claims of privilege and making . . . particular objections.”

“In this case, we disagree,” states the 14-page opinion written by Clinton appointee David Tatel. “We find unpersuasive the government’s argument that this case implicates the same separation-of-powers concerns present in” a lawsuit filed against the vice president for access to documents related to the identities of corporate executives and lobbyists who advised Cheney on energy policy.

In the lawsuit filed against Cheney “two nonprofit organizations, Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, filed civil suits, not FOIA requests, directly against various government officials — including Vice President Cheney himself — alleging that the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) was subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s disclosure requirements.

“The district court had allowed discovery to proceed against the Vice President in order to establish exactly who attended NEPDG meetings, and the Vice President sought a writ of mandamus from this court to vacate the discovery orders. After emphasizing the need for the district court to “narrow discovery to ensure that plaintiffs obtain no more than they need to prove their case,” we rejected the Vice President’s request for mandamus, explaining that he could object to individual discovery requests on executive privilege grounds if need be. The Supreme Court reversed, explaining, “Separation-of-powers considerations should inform a court of appeals’ evaluation of a mandamus petition involving the President or the Vice President.”

In the case of the Secret Service visitor logs, “the government argues that requiring the Secret Service to review FOIA requests for its visitor logs is tantamount to the discovery request at issue in” the lawsuit against Cheney related to his energy task force, the appeals court opinion says.

The energy task force lawsuit “is distinguishable from this case on several grounds. To begin with, the discovery request . . . was directed at the Vice President himself. Indeed, the Court explained that “[w]ere the Vice President not a party in the case, the argument that the Court of Appeals should have entertained an action . . . might present different considerations. The Court also observed, “[t]his is not a routine discovery dispute. The discovery requests are directed to the Vice President and other senior Government officials who served on the NEPDG to give advice and make recommendations to the President.”

CREW is seeking “documents not from the President or Vice President, but rather from the Secret Service, a FOIA agency well accustomed to dealing with such requests,” the appeals court opinion states. “According to the Secret Service’s FOIA officer, “the individuals who performed the searches . . . conduct FOIA searches as part of their regular responsibilities.”

In its 2006 FOIA filing, CREW identified nine evangelical Christian leaders, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and Moral Majority co-founder Jerry Falwell, who visited the White House and Cheney’s residence since 2001, who are alleged to have had a major impact on some aspects of the Bush administration’s domestic and foreign policy decisions.

“We are pleased that the D.C. Circuit is requiring the government to provide these Secret Service records that the White House has been trying to hide from the public,” said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for CREW. “The American people are entitled to know who has been influencing the White House.”

Last December, the White House sent out Christmas cards signed by President Bush and his wife Laura that contained a Biblical passage from the Old Testament:

“You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.”

The inclusion of the Biblical passage caught the attention of longtime broadcaster Barbara Walters, who was a recipient of the presidential Christmas card.

Walters said she doesn’t recall receiving “religious” holiday cards from past presidents and she wondered how non-Christians would receive such an overtly religious greeting.

“Usually in the past when I have received a Christmas card, it’s been ‘Happy Holidays’ and so on,” said Walters. “Don’t you think it’s a little interesting that the president of all the people is sending out a religious Christmas card? Does this also go to agnostics, and atheists, and Muslims?”

The Biblical passage inside the Christmas card did not amount to a constitutional violation because it was paid for by the Republican National Committee, but Weinstein said it’s intolerable, nonetheless, because military officials believe they have the approval of the White House to allow fundamentalist Christian organizations and their leaders to proselytize in the military.

The appeals court said it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the Bush administration’s appeal because the U.S. District Court’s December 2007 ruling did not require the White House to produce the visitor logs, rather the court simply required that the Secret Service process CREW’s FOIA filing.

Moreover, the appeals court rejected the White House’s argument that requiring the government to process the request and invoke exemptions would place a constitutionally impermissible burden on the president or vice president. The court determined that CREW’s request is “narrowly drawn” and that requiring the administration to rely on the FOIA’s exemptions to protect claims of executive privilege “is a routine occurrence, not a uniquely intrusive burden.”

As a result of the court’s ruling, the Secret Service must process CREW’s FOIA request seeking copies of the visitor logs.

But the Bush administration is expected to assert other legal arguments, the White House indicated Friday, in an attempt to block access to the visitor logs and perhaps delay release of the materials until President Bush leaves office.

The appeals court judges added that, “it is entirely possible that the government will never have to turn over a single document.

Source / Dissident Voice

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

29 June 2008

For Your Information


Open Records and the Texas Public Information Act.
By nhudson35 / June 28, 2008

The following post on public information in Texas -- what it is and how to get it -- was published in the Burnt Orange Report. It is chock-full of useful stuff.
I got to sit in on a great meeting several months ago with Attorney Joe Larsen, a Freedom of Information Act of Texas Board Member who has worked on open records cases. Mr. Larsen gave us some and useful information on the Texas Public Information Act. For more information on Open Records Requests, I recommend going to the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas website here.

Here are some rough notes from the meeting. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

What is public information?

Public information is information created, assembled, or maintained by or on behalf of a governmental body, or in transaction of governmental business. Public information may be kept on behalf of a governmental body, and it may extend to the hand of a vendor who maintains a governmental body's records. A governmental body may delegate responsibility of recordkeeping to an outside body.

You can request public information in any format, but a governmental body does not have to create new information for you.
In a previous age, notes were not public information. Today, most notes created, assembled, or maintained by or on behalf of a governmental body, or in transaction of governmental business, are considered public information.

Emails from a governmental body are generally considered public information, but the Texas Attorney General's opinions have not kept up with technology. The Attorney General has ruled that emails dealing with personal activities are not public information.

Governor Perry's office has taken advantage of the Attorney General's ruling, and open government advocates are upset about it. Perry's office has a procedure where his and his staffer's emails are destroyed after seven days. The seven-day period is arbitrary, and it is much shorter than the one to three year period required by law for paper correspondence. Dallas Morning News reported earlier this month:
Since this issue arose last year, the governor's office has maintained that staffers may delete e-mail from in boxes, but messages dealing with government business is printed and filed.

But government transparency advocates worry that some information may slip through the cracks.

"There's simply no way that all the e-mails are being printed and filed," Mr. Larsen said. "In addition to your daily work activity, you have to make sure you're printing out your emails so that it doesn't get deleted."
Rick Perry's contention that he is printing emails to conform to FOIA requirements seems to be a crock of you-know-what. Public information retention requirements shouldn't change because the information is kept in different mediums. A policy of deleting emails every seven days will inevitably destroy public information.

Retention requirements depend, instead, upon subject matter. State Libraries, which are charged with retention, have different retention policies for different subject matters. State Libraries have never had a policy that requires them to purge their shelves or electronic files after seven days.

What is a governmental body?

Governmental bodies are specifically defined in theTexas Public Information Act.

Some important notes:

Governmental bodies include DAs, school districts, and any entity supported all or in part by public funds.

The Judiciary is not included.

Case files are subject to common law access and first amendment right access, and you can access case files using Rule 12 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration's

The fact that you receive public funds does not necessarily mean you are subject to public information act. If, however, the Austin Chamber of Commerce gets a grant for their operations, that's not a quid pro quo. It's a general grant, and because many chambers of commerce take such grants, they have been found to be governmental bodies.

As a general rule, if a group has a contract with a governmental body, you should assess the relationship and argue that the information the body has should be made public.

Once a governmental body always a governmental body?
No. A group or organization with multiple divisions may have some aspects of their operations subject to FOIA requests, while other operations are not.

Who can request information?

Anyone. And the governmental body may not ask what it is for. You have a right to access the information, and you can be an agent of undisclosed principle.

How do you make a request?

You must put it in writing. Above and beyond that, not much is necessary. Generally, all you must do is mail it to the governmental body. If, however, you make it via email or fax, you should make that request directly to the public information officer. Most entities have a designated public information officer, and you can usually find his or her contact information at the governmental body's website. It is a good idea to call the public information officer of the governmental body to make sure you're communicating with the right person.

How do you write it?

Ask specifically for what you're looking for. Make requests as narrow as you can, consistent with what you're looking for. This costs less, and is easier to brief for the Attorney General. Be as eloquent and polite as possible. Sidebar snooty comments are not appropriate. Deal professionally with governmental bodies even if they don't deal professionally with you.

The process

Once a governmental body receives a public information act request, it has ten days to request an Attorney General ruling. In order to withhold the information from the requesting body, the governmental body must show that the requested information falls within an area exception.

A governmental body does not have ten days to turn over the information you've requested. The governmental body is required by law to get the information to you promptly. Promptly means as quickly as reasonably possible, and in many cases it may be on the very same day.

If the Governmental Body Claims the requested information falls within a FOIA area of exception

If the governmental body requests a ruling from the Attorney General, they write him a letter. The governmental body must copy the requester when requesting and Attorney General ruling. As soon as possible, submit comments to the Attorney General's office rebutting the governmental body's claim that the information falls within an area of exception.

Ask for a copy of a 15 day brief from the Attorney General's office, and submit comments rebutting the governmental body's argument for excepting the information you've requested.

The Attorney General has 45 working days to issue his ruling, and his office rarely issues a ruling before 45 days. The earlier you get your comments to the Attorney General's office, the better.

The Attorney General can rule in two ways. He can rule that the information falls within the area of exception, or that it does not. If the Attorney General's office rules in the requester's favor, the governmental body has two choices. It can turn over the information, or if the governmental body disagrees with the decision, it can sue the Attorney General.

More on the process

Take the high road. Don't try anything sneaky.

Put everything in writing.

Develop a relationship with the public information officer you are dealing with.
If you don't get a response from the Governmental Body, after reasonable attempts to contact them, get in touch with the Attorney General's office. Style a letter formally as a complaint to the Attorney General, and carbon copy or send a copy of the letter to the governmental body.

There is not a deadline for the cost estimate. If they send you the documents, you don't owe them a penny.

If they do not request and AG opinion within 10 days, the information is considered public.

A city will sometimes ask for an Attorney General ruling for a discreet part of a request. In instances like that, it may be easier to break down a request into separate requests.

Cost issues
If you have a dispute about the cost estimate, get in touch with the cost administrator at the Attorney General's office.

Exceptions

Superpublic information
We can't talk about exceptions without talking about "superpublic" information, which can be found in Chapter 552.022 of government code. Superpublic information is information that must be released, unless confidential by other law: Superpublic information includes budget information, information on vouchers, agency rules, and final reports (with the exception of law enforcement addressed below).

If the governmental body makes a third party settlement, confidentially, the amount of money in the settlement is superpublic information. Items on the list are superpublic, unless confidential by law. The difference between "confidential by law" and the other forms or confidentiality is that confidentiality by law is legally and mandatorily confidential. "Confidential by law" encompasses all confidential laws in Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. Examples of information that is confidential by law arein medical records and information a judge rules should be confidential. Information that is confidential by law can never be superpublic. Information submitted in open court cannot be considered confidential under the open records act, and confidentiality statutes must be interpreted narrowly.

Autopsy reports
Autopsy reports were, forever, expressly public. The Attorney General issued a ruling that Autopsy reports included Autopsy photographs. Some schmucks posted the photographs on the web, and an amendment was made to the criminal code of procedure intended to prohibit release of autopsy report photographs unless the individual was in police custody.

The Attorney General issued a ruling that effectively changed the law. Now, in almost all homicides, you cannot get autopsies. You can get the autopsy photographs for individuals in custody, but not the reports.

Law enforcement
You are entitled to basic information about law enforcement. This right has its origins in caselaw. In a Houston chronicle case in the 1970s, the law was revised to says basic information about an arrested person, a crime, and an officer must be released upon request

If you request and incident report from a law enforcement agency, you may be given a synopsis of an incident report. You are entitled to detailed information even if it isn't on the front page of the incident report.

Personnel records exception. The Public information act does not reach anything that isn't already covered by common law and constitutional privacy. Will get 95% of personnel files. You can get evaluations and an officer's salary history.

If you wish to find out about an officer's case, it must result in deferred adjudication or a conviction before it is public information. Investigations can go on ad infinitum.

The Attorney General is subject to the act. To the extent the Attorney General rules against law enforcement, he rules against himself.

Court Records
Not subject to public information. You need significant cause to seal or close off court records.

Source. / Burnt Orange Report

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.