Transparency News 7/20/15

Monday, July 20, 2015

State and Local Stories


Newport News Police Chief Richard W. Myers said there's "a national discussion going on among police leaders" these days on whether — and when — to make public the names of police officers who shoot and kill in the line of duty. Myers addressed the issue at a news conference Wednesday in the death of Kawanza J. Beaty, 23, of Newport News, whom police killed July 4 after they say he pointed a sawed-off shotgun at a police officer during a pursuit. Michael J. Muhammad, an activist from Norfolk speaking for Beaty's family, has called for the "immediate release of the names of the officers" on the scene that day. "What we're finding" around the country, he said, is that officers who shoot a person on the job often have done so before. Myers declined Wednesday to release the name of the officer who shot and killed Beaty. The chief did, however, say he's a narcotics detective and eight-year department veteran who has previously shot a suspect on the job. He said the Newport News Police Department's "historic policy and practice" — similar to many other local departments — is not to name officers being investigated. "Our current policy prohibits the release prior to any criminal charges being filed," Myers said. Separately, he said, it's been the long-standing policy of the Newport News commonwealth's attorney's office to release the names when the final prosecutor's report — virtually always clearing the officer of criminal wrongdoing — is complete.
Daily Press

Montgomery County supervisors decided this week to give themselves a $3,600 per year, per member pay raise – tying the increase to the board’s dual role as the board of the county public service authority. The supervisors long ago appointed themselves to also serve as the directors of the PSA. On Monday, voting in their roles as supervisors, the board voted 3-2 to raise the compensation supervisors of the board receive as authority board directors.
Roanoke Times

Rolling Stone has confirmed for the first time in a court filing that a University of Virginia sexual assault victim advocate, who also served on an Obama administration White House task force, introduced the student who became the centerpiece of the magazine’s now-retracted story about a gang rape on campus. The move could open the door for the magazine to try to shift blame to the university for a journalism debacle that continues to reverberate across the country. But Rolling Stone’s recent legal answer adds another twist, pointing to a young woman, Emily Renda, who the magazine says played an important role in the story. According to Rolling Stone’s legal filing, Ms. Renda facilitated the introduction between the reporter, contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and the purported victim, and essentially pushed the story in Washington and in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Washington Times


National Stories
​
It’s hard to fathom the threat to national security hidden in the files of Vietnam War-era Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Earle Wheeler. Or records of U.S.-Chilean relations from 1963. Or State Department planning policy from 1947 through 1953. Yet the federal government is still withholding these records, 20 years after journalists and researchers asked for them under the Freedom of Information Act. These and other records are among the 10 oldest pending FOIA requests in the federal government. The agency handling those requests, made from 1993 to 1995, is the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). But that agency isn’t the problem. Instead, it’s the State Department, the Pentagon and other bureaucracies that have dragged their feet in declassifying, or removing the “secret” label, from records that long ago lost any real sensitivity. The National Archives can’t make them public without those declassifications. Eight of the 10 oldest requests were made by the National Security Archive, a nonprofit research organization housed at George Washington University. 
Star Tribune

Covington & Burling is suing a federal agency over a February 2015 report that addressed consumers’ concerns about credit reports and scores. The complaint, filed in Washington federal district court under the Freedom of Information Act, seeks nearly 1,200 documents from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) detailing how the agency prepared the report. The agency earlier released 187 pages in full. The law firm, pursuing the records at the request of an unidentified client, wants information about the selection of the focus groups that formed the substance of the CFPB report; the participants’ responses; and demographic data about the participants.
LegalTimes

When the reporter Jason Leopold gets ready to take on the United States government, he psychs himself up by listening to the heavy metal bands Slayer and Pantera.  Mr. Leopold describes himself as “a pretty rageful guy.” He argued recently with staff members at his son’s preschool because he objected to their references to “Indians” and they objected to his wearing family-unfriendly punk rock T-shirts to school meetings. Mr. Leopold, 45, who works for Vice News, reserves most of his aggression for dealing with the government. He has revealed about 20,000 pages of government documents, some of them the basis for explosive news stories. Despite his appearance — on a recent day his T-shirt featured the band name “Sick of It All” — his secret weapon is the opposite of anarchic: an encyclopedic knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, the labyrinthine administration machine that serves it and the kind of legal judo often required to pry information from it. His small office, just off the kitchen in his home here, is littered with envelopes from various branches of the government and computer disks filled with secrets. His persistence has led to numerous revelations — some in documents that have been released exclusively to him, and others in documents that have been released to multiple reporters after pressure has been brought by Mr. Leopold.
New York Times

A circuit court in Missouri has ruled that the state Department of Corrections cannot withhold information about the pharmacies and laboratories that compound, test, and supply the drugs that the state uses to carry out executions. The ruling is a rare legal victory for the public’s right to know details about the sources of such drugs amid widespread concerns over the legality of how they are obtained. The primary issue in the case was whether Missouri officials have the legal authority to unilaterally designate the pharmacies and labs that test and supply its execution drugs as “persons” that were part of its “execution team,” and therefore shield their identities from the public.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press