Stretching Credulity - Anchorage Police Need 40 Hours To Provide Data To Reporter

Here's the tweet from an Anchorage reporter:

My FOIA request to APD was answered. It's only going to cost $1,600 to learn how much SWAT overtime has cost the city in 2017. What a deal! pic.twitter.com/oCkFS02Uiw — Travis Khachatoorian (@ReporterTravisK) August 31, 2017

APD = Anchorage Police Dept     MOA= Municipality of Anchorage

A Related Story

Back in 1982 or 3 when I was working in the Human Resources department of the Municipality, a request came in from the League of Women Voters.  They wanted to see how much women and men got paid for the same work.  They asked if they could have it in two weeks.  The person who handled that had it done in an hour or two.  Then she held on to it for a week.  I asked why.  If they know I can get this information this fast, they'll be flooding me with requests.

I understood the logic, though I wasn't completely comfortable with it.  But they had started with a two week request so it seemed ethically ok.

Jumping ahead 35 years to the present - A Few Thoughts

1.  MOA should be tracking overtime routinely.  The Municipality should be on top of overtime for all the departments, just as a matter of keeping spending down.  When you get enough overtime in a department, it's time to start weighing whether it wouldn't be cheaper to hire new employees.  Every 40 hours (or so depending on the department) of overtime would pay for a new employee working regular time.  Departments with hundreds of hours of overtime  are paying time and a half when they could be hiring new employees to work at the normal pay scale.  This article about overtime at the Fire Department would suggest the MOA is keeping track of their overtime at the Fire Department.  APD has similar issues, so it would make sense they were tracking that too.

2.  Modern computers make tracking this sort of information almost instantaneous.  If the MOA was able to get the information in the League of Women Voters story above in two hours or less in 1984, then there is no reason that the information that Travis Khachatoorian  requested can't be found in an hour or less 35 years later.  If they can't do that, they need to hire some competent computer programmers in Finance.

3.  The first five hours request processing time should be free.  OK, I'm using 2011 information here, but John McKay's Open Government Guide says the first five hours should be free. See page 9.  Also go to page 37 to begin the section on electronic records.  I'm not sure if the laws have changed or not, but electronic records capability are much faster now.  There are also provisions that allow for waiving fees in the public interest.

My Conclusions

There are several possible (not mutually exclusive) conclusions:

1.  The MOA is using archaic software that makes it hard for them to get this information quickly.  The scandal over the SAP computer project lends some credibility to this conclusion.

2.  The MOA can get the information much more quickly than they say, but doesn't really want the information out and is hoping the reporter will find another story to pursue.

3.  The MOA finance department is not the right department to ask for this sort of information.  Possibly payroll could do this more quickly.  But Travis says he asked the APD for the information, so they should have sent it to the right department.

4. This should be a very easy thing to find out on the computer.  If it isn't  the computer expertise at the MOA is much worse than the SAP problems suggest.

My gut says the problem is with number 2, but I'd need to get more data to be certain.

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

Those were the questions the Watergate committee and the media asked about Richard Nixon's knowledge of the Watergate break in.  He claimed he knew nothing until very late and then when he learned he acted quickly.

Alexander Butterfield told the committee on July 13, 1973 that Nixon taped all his White House conversations.  I was in a closet that I'd made into a darkroom when he said that and it was clear this changed everything.   But then the stalling came.  Executive privilege prevented the White House from handing the tapes to the committee. 

Yesterday, the Alaska Dispatch News and the Alaska Public Media filed suit against Governor Sean Parnell for not releasing emails and other information that would help them understand and report on what Parnell knew about the sexual harassment and general toxic environment at the Alaska National Guard and when he knew it.  The article in today's ADN  says it took the Parnell administration four months to deny the request from the Alaska Public Media and three months to deny the ADN request. 

"Under separate requests, Alaska Dispatch News reporter Lisa Demer and Alaska Public Radio Network reporter Alexendra Gutierrez sought access to guard-related emails to or from Nizich. Because chaplains within the Alaska National Guard had sent their growing concerns about the agency’s toxic climate to Nizich’s personal email account, reporters asked that guard-related correspondence from Nizich’s personal email account also be provided to the media.

In April, during an interview with APRN, Parnell said that once he learned about the communication to Nizich’s personal email account, he directed his top aide to forward any such emails to his state account, where they would then become a public record."

The article offers explanations for the denial:

"In denial letters sent Sept. 26, Ruaro explained several exemptions and laws that allowed the emails to be withheld, including deliberative process and the need to protect “the right to privacy of victims and alleged victims.”
Ruaro also stated that people accused of misconduct also have a constitutional right to privacy when disclosure of the material “could reasonably lead to embarrassment, harm, or retaliation.” Finally, he cited that confidentiality also extends to members of the clergy, in whom victims have confided." [highlight added]

You can read the whole letter denying the material from the governor's chief of staff here.


John McKay's (the attorney for the ADN and APM on this - and, to fully disclose here,  for myself  when I was threatened with legal action if I didn't take down a blog post - takes issue with the governor's reasons for withholding the requested information.  You can see the full document online here.  My numbers correspond with the numbers in McKay's filing.  I've summarized some of McKay's key points responding to the reasons the governor's office gave for denying the requests.

20.  That while state law presumes the public records are disclosable and that doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure, the governor has taken a narrow restrictive approach, “resolving doubts in favor of secrecy, delaying responses . . .discouraging pursuit of legitimate requests, and otherwise failing to comply fully, timely, and effectively. . ."

21.  Governor is wrongfully withholding documents that would “help explain the circumstances of the NG Scandal . . . [and] would allow the public to better assess the accuracy and candor” of what the Governor says on this.

22.  Didn’t provide an index identifying documents being withheld and the reason for withholding them as required by the law. 

23.  For documents that might be subject to privilege or redaction, Governor has not released those parts that are not subject to privilege or redaction.

24. - 26.  Governor previously told press that the emails to Chief of Staff Nizich would be made publicly available.

While there is room for interpretation, I'd say points 22 and 23 don't leave much wiggle room for the governor. 

The suit asks the court to take nine actions.  Again, I've abbreviated them and you can see the full language here.)

1. That the court order the governor to turn over the documents without delay.
2. For documents not turned over immediately because of claims of privilege, that the governor turn over a log of the withheld documents and the specific privilege claimed for withholding each.
3. Unless the governor moots this request by handing everything over immediately, that the employees of the governor’s office certify to the court that:    
1. they’ve made a diligent search for the documents requested and
2. that they've turned over everything, and if not when they were asked to do so by a superior and why they had not
4. That Chief of Staff Mike Nizich certify that he
1.  has been directed by the Governor to locate and forward to his state email account emails relating to the Guard in his private email account
2. He fully complied
3. If not, why he failed to do so and whether and when he advised the governor of his failure to do so
5. Order any documents or records relating to the NG Scandal not already turned over be preserved.
6. Court issue temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief against the governor, his office, and anyone working for them, restraining them from further obstructing or delaying or denying access to the relevant documents.
7. Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the governor’s office  has failed to comply.
8. Court enter other such relief it deems just and appropriate.
9. Court award the ADN and Alaska Public Media their costs and attorney fees

I find it ironic that the governor is pleading for the privacy rights, based on the Alaska Constitution, of the accused here, people whose names in many cases have already been before the public,  though he's not shown any concern about those rights being violated for women seeking reproductive health services or for gays and lesbians seeking to get married. 

As the lawsuit says, protected confidential information can easily be redacted and the information not protected should have already been turned over. 

Nixon fought as hard as he legally could to hold on to the tapes. He even ignored suggestions that he burn them. Nixon’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the tapes were protected by executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, the justices decided differently. By a vote of 8 to 0 — Justice William Rehnquist recused himself — Nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes.
Fifteen days later, the president of the United States resigned.  [The whole article is here.  The link in he quote goes to another article on Nixon's resignation.]

The Parnell case is trivial compared to the Nixon case, though for Parnell, in a competitive race for reelection, it could cost him the election if the information shows he knew more sooner than he has so far revealed.  The delays could also just indicate the lack of understanding and ineptness of his staff.  

I've been unusually harsh on this topic of the National Guard because I know that the governor could have and should have taken action much sooner.  I got emails after posting about Katkus' confirmation hearings in 2010 from National Guard folks that were long and credible about the depth of corruption in the guard.  If I got such information based on a brief comment in a longer post, the governor had equally credible reports then too.  I didn't act on it because my correspondents didn't want to give names or specific details.  And I wasn't the man ultimately responsible for the National Guard.  The governor is and was.  Many people's lives were seriously harmed because of the governor's ineffective response to this situation.  And the governor has the long report on the problems with the guard.  All the media are trying to do now, is determine the accuracy of Parnell's declarations that he did all he could with the information he had. 

Dental Spam Response Part 1: ". . . if nothing is done within 24hrs, I will be forced to take legal action."

Blogging has its hazards.  I put up a post about a spam dental comment on Monday 11/28/11 at 10:52pm.   I got this email [dated 11/29/11 7:52am (Alaska time)]:

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is Dr XXX  XXXXX I am the owner of XXXXX Dental Arts. I was made aware of your blog today and I wanted to know what, exactly, is the purpose of this negativity in your blog? You do not know who I am or what I do in my practice but to say such things is considered defamation of character and is illegal. The way in which I advertise on the internet or increase traffic to my website shouldn't be any concern to yourself. You do not know me, nor do you know anything about me. I ask that you take down your recent post about XXXXXXX Dental Arts. I do not want to escalate this to my attorney but if nothing is done within 24hrs, I will be forced to take legal action.

Thanks,

XXX   XXXX

This happened once before when an attorney for the Alaska International Film Festival sent a longer letter.  In that case, I contacted attorney John McKay who wrote a long response letter.

In this case, this was directly from the dentist, not his attorney.  And he did say, "thanks" at the end.  And he didn't use his title in his signature.  Those are good signs to me.  So I drafted a response and checked with my attorney and then sent it off Tuesday night:

Dr. XXXXXXXXX,

Let me try to address your questions:

1. “I was made aware of your blog today and I wanted to know what, exactly, is the purpose of this negativity in your blog?”

You mention negativity as though talking about something negative is a bad thing.   Surely, when you find that a patient has a cavity, you must raise that negativity with your patient so you can proceed to fix it.

The purpose of the post is to point out the dangers of legitimate businesses hiring SEO firms that use sleazy tactics. Like filling a cavity, I’m trying to help businesses, like your own, protect themselves from sleazy SEO tactics. And like filling a cavity, it might hurt a bit, but I mean you no malice, as you mean your patients no malice.

2. "You do not know who I am or what I do in my practice. . .”

I do not know much about you, nor do you know me. But I do know
something about your marketing practices because an advertisement for your business was posted on my blog. Your SEO came to me, I didn’t go looking for you. My blog has a warning above the comment box that says (in part):

“Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. . .  Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted.”

Despite this warning, a spam advertisement was left as a comment directing my readers to your dental clinic. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the blog post. In my mind this is tacky, because it pretends to be a comment, but really is an ad. In this case, there was not even an effort made to find a post about dentistry (I have some) or to even pretend to relate to the post at all. (Some SEO people write things like “This is a very interesting post” before leaving their links. And, in fact, another dentist has left another spam comment, but it talks about dentistry at least on this post which mentions 'dentist' though the main topic is SEO and spam.)

I went to the effort to call your office to check if you knew about the ad. Someone who identified herself as YYYYYY said this must be related to your SEO. I posted that on the blog so that my readers (and you) could see that I had checked  and that your office was not aware.

3. “but to say such things is considered defamation of character and is
illegal.”

I’m a professor emeritus of public administration at the University of Alaska  Anchorage. I write carefully and I try to present different possible interpretations rather than state things as fact. The post speculated different possibilities and provided evidence for the different possibilities. As I review it I see nothing that could be considered defamation.

You have not specifically identified what ‘things’ you consider  defamation of character or how it is illegal. If you can do that, I will share your  comments with my attorney, and consider any edits he advises.

I was threatened with legal action once before. That ended abruptly when my attorney responded to their threat. My attorney has represented news media and others engaged in exercising their First Amendment rights for over three decades, and has taught a university course dealing with these subjects for almost as long.

In conclusion, please identify the specific parts of the post that you consider defamation of character or illegal so I can consider making edits if my attorney agrees with your assessment.

Sincerely,

Steve Aufrecht

This all happened about a week ago.  I'll put this up now and Part 2 which includes the dentist's response and mine.

Here's the resolution in Response Part 2.

My Attorney's Response Letter

Last November I wrote a post about the Alaska International Film Festival.  Last week I received a letter from their attorney saying I had libeled them.  This is my attorney's letter in response. 

March 19, 2010

Mr. Robert Jassoy
Law Offices of Robert K. Jassoy
110 W. “A” Street, Suite 950
San Diego, CA 92101

Re:    Your Client:    Alaska International Film Festival
My Client:    whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com

Dear Mr. Jassoy,

Your March 10, 2010, letter to “Mr. John Doe aka Steve, whatdoino@alaska.net” threatening a suit for libel and other tort claims has been forwarded to me for a response. Because your demands are without legal or factual basis, my client does not intend to remove his blog post as you have demanded. Whether or not the activities of your client are of more than passing interest to him, my client does have strong feelings about folks who try to use bullying or intimidation to interfere with the free flow of ideas and information concerning matters of public interest or concern. And that would be the effect, as well as the apparent purpose, of your letter.

My client chooses, as do many bloggers, to conduct his on-line activities at this site using the anonymity of the name he has chosen. However, he has nothing to hide. His name is Steven Aufrecht. He is Professor Emeritus of Public Administration at University of Alaska Anchorage, respected both in his previous academic career and his current avocation as a blogger and commentator. His identity is widely known, and in any event, he provides ready access for those who wish to contact him.

If your client has nothing to hide, we would ask that you disclose the name and contact information of the owner of the Alaska International Film Festival, whose legal interests you represent. My client does not know whether, as you assert in your letter, “awards-based film and screenplay competitions” and “virtual film festivals” are “viable and important avenues for independent filmmakers seeking recognition for their works.” However, he doesn’t feel the need to question your opinion about this matter, or your right to express that opinion. We don’t doubt that

[Robert K. Jassoy, Esq. March 19, 2010 Page 2 of 3]

there are legitimate contrasting points of view concerning your client’s activities, and my client would be happy to continue an open, direct and civilized conversation about some of these issues.

You do not explain in your letter what, if any, specific facts in my client’s blogpost you consider false and defamatory. You don’t seem to dispute that the “film festival” is not a “festival” in any traditional or commonly-accepted sense of that term, which would usually connote some on- site event at an announced time and place, and would usually involve the screening of films submitted. (Perhaps it is your position that what is or is not a “festival” is a matter of opinion.) Nor do you dispute that your client has chosen to appropriate a name for itself that is as close as one might get to the name of the actual established and prestigious Alaska film festival, the Anchorage International Film Festival. Nor do you dispute that your client attempted to make the public think that it has a place of business in, or other substantial contact with, Alaska, e.g., by advertising that it has a suite of offices at a “place” in Anchorage that turns out to be only a small mailbox. Nor do you dispute that other commentators have questioned whether factors such as these should raise flags of caution among members of the public interested in events calling themselves film festivals, and have questioned whether under these circumstances the label “scam” might be appropriate to use in expressing their opinion about your client’s “festival” – or that my client fairly quoted the source of such earlier opinion, and attributed it so that readers could go to that source for more information and judge it for themselves. Nor do you dispute that your client falsely represented to the public that its Alaska “film festival” is more established than it is, and has traded off the existing AIFF, by talking about the awards that it gives out “each year” when in fact it has apparently never given out awards before at all, and, indeed, apparently has not even existed before this year.

The only thing you specifically identify in your letter as being objectionable is that my client raised a question about whether your client’s “film festival” might be characterized as a “scam.” I’m sure you understand that the law allows great latitude in how one chooses to characterize, or express an opinion about anything at all, including a commercial enterprise soliciting money from filmmakers around the world under circumstances such as this. For the sake of argument, I will grant you that reasonable people could differ in their opinions about whether to characterize your client’s activities as a scam — but that’s the nature of opinions, isn’t it?

If my client had called your client’s activities a scam, it would be fully protected by the First Amendment and common law. A fortiori, his raising the question about how your client’s activities are appropriately characterized under these circumstances, or noting that such questions have been raised by others, is also fully protected. The fact that, as you recognize, film festivals and competitions are important to independent filmmakers (and to the larger public, we believe) makes it all the more important that discussion and debate on the nature and quality of such events be uninhibited, wide-open and robust.
I was pleased to see in your firm’s on-line advertising that one of your specialties is “anti- SLAPP” litigation. This means that I don’t need to explain to you about laws like the one your state found necessary to enact specifically to counter what it found to be the “disturbing” use of litigation to chill the valid exercise of free speech and other First Amendment rights. It also means that you

[Robert K. Jassoy, Esq. March 19, 2010 Page 3 of 3]

should easily grasp why any suit like the one you have threatened in your letter to Dr. Aufrecht would be thrown out, and fees assessed against your client, if a motion were filed pursuant to an applicable SLAPP statute.

I can appreciate that you would consider the matter “resolved” if you could succeed in getting those who raise questions about your client’s business, or who might portray its activities in less than flattering terms, to submit to the censorship of your threats and remove these discussions from the public arena. Fortunately, the law does not give you a right to require this.

I have represented news media and others engaged in exercising their First Amendment rights for over three decades, and have taught a university course dealing with these subjects for almost as long. I am fairly confident in the advice I am giving my client. If you wish to point out legal authorities and facts indicating I am wrong, however, I would be happy to consider them and discuss this further with Dr. Aufrecht. And, as noted above, if your client is willing to identify himself or herself, and t openly exchange information and views about the nature and activities of this business the public at large, and independent filmmakers in particular, are being asked to support, my client looks forward to continuing that conversation.

Sincerely,


D. John McKay
cc:    Dr. Steven Aufrecht (via e-mail)

Alaska Overnighters 13

My daughter emailed:

Hey -- It looks like my friend Paul is in a show. Maybe you guys would want
to see you...
m

So, what else could we do? Fortunately we got there a little early and got good seats, because Grant Hall was full. It appeared from the audience reaction that many of the people were involved with theater and knew each other.

Four playwrights were picked last night. From what I understood, they were each given a title, a director, cast assigned to specific characters. The playwright needs to write the play and the cast perform it 24 hours later. Given the conditions, this was really amazing.

The plays ranged from quite good to ok. But all the acting was worth seeing. They assigned another set of four plays for Sunday night, so there is still a chance to this. John McKay, the attorney who represented the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU in Federal Court during the corruption trials, was assigned as one of the playwrights for tomorrow night.
It was dark and the actors moved, so I figured I'd make the pictures small so they weren't too blurred.

Another All New Show - 8pm Sunday, Grant Hall at APU. $10 a seat. Great deal.

Trial Leftovers - Access to Courts and Credentialing Bloggers

There's a lot of material that I haven't had the time or energy to report, mostly issues that came up during the trials and needed some thought time and some research. One of those topics - one of these days - is the role of wire tapping and other surveillance techniques. But not today. Today I want to talk about a) media access to court rooms and b) the issue of press credentials for bloggers.

Media access to the courtroom in the big picture was not the issue this. Everyone could get into the court room. However, you have to go through more stringent and separate security from the regular security for the federal building. At the Anderson trial, this security meant no cell phones, cameras (still or video), audio recording, or computers past security. Attorney John McKay, hired by the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU jointly, was able to get the Judge and I guess also the US Marshals to allow the press to take cell phones and computers past security. Cell phones had to be completely off inside the court room. McKay was also responsible for getting access for the press to the government's surveillance tapes as soon as they had been used as evidence. The trial coverage significantly changed when they began posting the tapes online during the Kohring trial.

But this sort of access was only a temporary waiver of the rules by Judge Sedwick for the Kott and then the Kohring trials. This doesn't change the rules for the US District Court in Anchorage. John McKay said the Marshals had a number of security issues. Googling didn't really add any other issues.

Issues raised to restrict press (including video/still cameras, audio ) access to courts:
a. space in the courtroom
b. privacy and security of jurors, witnesses (particularly undercover agents and rape victims), defendants (children)
c. disturbance of the court proceedings - basic goal for the judge is a fair trial

Reading the ADN during the trial, I marveled at the photographs of the Linehan trial. Our State Courts have different rules. And some other states allow live audio and video feeds from the courtroom. California has particularly detailed rules for press access including getting permission to bring in video and audio equipment.

Apparently the fact that many laptops phones have video and audio recording capabilities and was discussed in the negotiations, but I guess they decided to look the other way. I certainly assumed that if any video or even a photo of the courtroom showed up in the media, that the computer and cell phone privileges would be gone.

Why press passes may be needed, including for bloggers.

• Determining who gets In
  The courtroom was never so crowded that anyone was turned away. Apparently during the Exxon Valdez trial, this was not the case. So, in the event that a courtroom is too small to hold spectators and press, there is a need to determine a) who is media and b) which members of the media get in. Again, at the Exxon Valdez trial I was told it was first come, first served and that a video room was set up for those who couldn't get into the actual courtroom.
• Determining who doesn't have to leave the cell phone and laptop with security
  This did become an issue for the Kott and Kohring trials. For some journalists, it was not an issue. They simply used their notepads and pencils. But I couldn't have covered the cases the way I did without my laptop. As I think I've related before, the established media folks gave me advice on creating a press pass and wished me luck. I never had any serious trouble getting in. Security knew me from the Anderson trial and let me through. Though once or twice they asked who I was with and I showed my pass and they let me through.
  On the second day of the Kohring trial, one of the guards asked for my url and my email address and said he'd get back to me. And he let me through with the computer. The next day I had no trouble. The next day, when he was back, he told me that they didn't have a policy for bloggers, but the judge said, since I'd covered the previous two trials, I could take my laptop in.

So, if media get special privileges how do you determine who qualifies as media?

In general, your employer, a traditional media outlet - newspaper, radio or television station - gave you a pass. In some cases these had to be approved by the organization you were covering - particularly where there was limited space (White House Press Corps) or special access given to the press. So, what about credentials for bloggers?

In the perfect world, there would be room for everyone. Is there a fair way to determine who is a 'legitimate' blogger and who is not? One could say that people who cover 'news' on a regular basis are different from people who simply post pictures of family or mushrooms. But before the Anderson trial, I had never done any sort of thorough reporting of anything, and who's to say which family blogger won't suddenly get serious about some community issue and want media privileges to bring a computer or camera in?

Googling, I learned that this question about press credentials for bloggers is being dealt with in all sorts of venues. Sports bloggers post a lot on this with different outcomes that seem totally idiosyncratic. One sports franchise rejects bloggers, while another grants them passes, but not access to locker rooms, and a third gives them press passes. The Washington Capitals asked a blogger to come up with a blogging policy. Some other bloggers chronicle their somewhat successful attempts to get AFL press credentials.. The Ladies Professional Golf Association said no. The Latin Grammys also said no to a blogger.

The American Bar Association allows bloggers into their meetings and events, conditionally

“New media” journalists, such as bloggers, must authenticate their status as reporters by supplying links to and/or samples of their blogs or media outlets. Credentials will be granted at the discretion of the Director.

The CIA apparently changed their definition of media to make it inclusive of bloggers.

GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of "news media" that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

And then there is the Media Bloggers Association that is credentialing bloggers.

Up here in Alaska, I'm not sure there's that great a benefit to the credentials generally, but having my laptop in court sure was a big deal. Reviewing what's out there, it seems there are a few existing standards that have been used by various institutions.

• how long and frequently you blog
• do you cover 'news' in the particular area rather than just post family pictures
  
• % of your income that comes from media work (California legislature)
• affiliation with established media
• do we like what you write about us? This was not listed anywhere, but I assume it is a factor
• links to your post and ratings from blog rating sites like technorati

Coincidentally, The Next Hurrah, a great blog that focuses on the Federal Courts and the Department of Justice among other topics, discussed blogger press passes today because of a New York City case

New York journalist Rafael Martinez-Alequin and his lawyer Norm Siegel are challenging the New York City police department's policies for issuing press credentials. (For somewhat arcane reasons having to do with access to crime scenes, the NYPD issues all City media credentials.)

Marci Wheeler, posting as emptywheel on the Next Hurrah, doesn't think the percentage of income criterion is constitutional. I hope not because it would cause me serious problems. She also emphasized the criterion of links.

I suggested that rather than judging on readership (since really focused blogs tend to spike when their expertise becomes relevant), a Court ought to judge on links. Since linking is a sign of reliability, you'd want to show links to show that you're considered reliable (and, preferably, knowledgeable on the subject) by your peers.

While my blog isn't highly specialized normally, it certainly did spike when I was covering the trials.

A hockey blogger even questioned the whole need for press passes,

What is there to gain by doing it? Really. The key selling point of the blogging community is that we're not the media. We have a hell of a lot more freedom to post a certain angle or perspective that many in the mainstream media cannot get away with. The more bloggers try to "gain respect" within the framework of the mainstream media, the more they have to adhere by certain guidelines and behaviors, and the closer the bloggers are to becoming incorporated to that mainstream.

I did think some of the Media Bloggers Association requirements seemed focused on aggregating power for the head of the organizations:

* Members must be intimately familiar with the MBA Mission Statement and Statement of Principles and support both without reservation.
* Members must be subscribed to the MBA Broadcast e-mail list (MBA-Announce) at all times.
* An MBA event or activity is any event or activity so designated by the President of the MBA.
* Members are expected to promote the organization and portray the organization in a positive light in both word and deed at all times.
* Members are expected to identify and recruit potential members.
(emphasis mine)

I also think that there may be times - like covering Federal cases in Anchorage - where getting accepted as media would be important for my blogging.

And finally, there is the problem of having the agency itself decide who can cover it. It's ok for privately owned sports teams to limit access perhaps, but for government there are additional problems. While I think Judge Sedwick has been scrupulously fair and respectful to everyone in the courtroom [no, this is not sucking up now that I realize he might be reading my blog, I'm still calling them the way I see them] not every judge will be so fair. There is no question that media who are highly critical are not as welcome and may not get their press pass renewed.

Perhaps a committee that has diverse representation could work with the agency. Even this can be hijacked as the history of US regulatory agencies has shown over and over again. But it's more transparent better than just a judge or administrator. And publishing criteria used is also critical.

Pete Kott Trial - Underlying Stories - The Press

Ropinator asked in a comment a few posts ago, "are you a court journalist or something like that?" Ropi is a Hungarian high school student with a thoughtful blog that I read. His question gives me a chance to talk about some of the media stories underlying this case, including mine.

Well, am I a trial journalist? Something like that. At least for the last two weeks I've been. While I haven't hidden my identity from people, I haven't given much detail in my blog profile. I'd rather people evaluate the blog based on what I post than they jump to conclusions from labels in the profile. But the Anchorage Daily News has 'outed' me in their Alaska News Reader link this week.

Many of the outlets focused on the prosecution’s cross examination of former House speaker Pete Kott. Retired UAA professor Steve Aufrecht, in his What Do I Know? blog, says prosecutors scored base hits but no home runs, with their most significant gain questioning Kott’s honesty.

So this is a good time to talk about being a 'journalist' at the courtroom.

I went to the Tom Anderson trial because he was a former student of mine and I wanted to hear what happened first hand. Since I was there I started taking notes to help keep focused. Since I had the notes, I decided to start putting them on my blog. I started talking to Michael Carey (from the Anchorage Daily News) one day and we ended up going to lunch. He introduced me to others such as Lisa Demer. I knew Steve Heimel already from the old days when I did stuff with KSKA. Then one day my blog starting getting lots of hits. It turned out that the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) had linked to my site. The most daily hits my blog had gotten before that was about 22. Now I got 40, then 53, then 101, then 150. And after the trial they tapered off just as fast, though I'd picked up a few more regular viewers and was averaging 15-20 a day.

So when the Kott trial was coming up, it seemed like blogging was the right thing to do. Not just to get my hits up, but because I had taught public administration at the university and have published articles and book chapters on accountability and ethics and corruption. This was the second trial to come out of an FBI investigation that has several other Alaskan politicians implicated, including the US Senator, Ted Stevens, who is the senior Republican senator in the United States Senate.

First, I'd like to say that the other journalists - Lisa Demer and Michael Carey from the ADN - have been very supportive of my blogging. John McKay, the ADN and KTUU attorney who has opened media access to the courtroom, has also been very supportive as have Steve Heimel and David Shurtleff from APRN.

As that previous paragraph might suggest, the media people know each other and help each other out. When the ADN and KTUU got permission to bring their cell phones past the security (but they must be turned off in the courtroom) and to bring their laptops into the courtroom, that was extended to all media. My status as an independent blogger was untested, but they told me to make up a press pass, and by the time I was ready to bring my computer into the courtroom, the security guards knew me as a regular and I had no problems. The other media folks are the camera people - both video and still - who wait outside the courtroom security for attorneys, the defendant and his party, witnesses - to get pictures.
And there are also a couple of artists.
When I talk about media stories, I realize now that there are stories about the media and how they cover things and there are the different kinds of ways they cover stories. I think I have that all mixed together here.

1. The sound bites and surprises are irresistible, especially if they break open something important. Everyone's waiting for the good quotable lines or the juicy event such as when Bill Allen said he paid for the workmen who remodeled Senator Ted Stevens' Girdwood house. Some recent examples:

• The box of red CBC (Corrupt Bastard Club) baseball caps embroidered by Pete Kott's girlfriend.
  
• Kott's Chief of Staff: "I had two different bosses. When Pete was drunk he started talking hillbilly..." In fact,Steve Heimel opened his country music show on KNBA this afternoon, with "Today is National Talk Hillbilly Day" and that Kott trial jurors shouldn't listen to the show because he might slip in some trial comments. (I didn't hear any after that.)
  
• Kott: "If I have a choice between compromising my principles or lying to my friends, then lying to my friends will take a back seat."
  

2. The tension between getting the story in quickly and getting it accurate and meaningful. It's not that easy to objectively summarize 6 hours of testimony - covering all the key points and letting the reader know what it all means without skewing things. Lisa Demer, as I've written before, has done a great job. Going into enough depth without losing the overall sense of what happened is hard. The newspaper people have limited space and an editor to get past so that something is up early on the website and then in the morning paper. The radio and tv people have even less air time to get a sense of the day to their listeners. The sound bite is especially helpful for them. And they are dependent on the court clerk's office to get them the audio cd of the court each day in time to get their stories taped by air time. And sometimes they don't get the tape. I have the easiest task. I can blog as much or as little as I want. I can focus on a small point without worrying about getting the big picture across, leaving the ADN with the responsibility of giving the whole picture.

3. Competition among media. This is something I haven't particularly noticed. Everyone is sharing. If I get to the court late, another journalist will let me know what's happened. As soon as the ADN got all the audio and video tapes from the Prosecutors they emailed the media who are covering the trial, including me, to give us a link to download everything. And it was all very easy to download.
The only competition I've sensed was between local media and Outside media. Rich Mauer from the ADN was not happy that it was an NPR reporter who followed the governor out of court Thursday and broke the story that she felt Sen. Stevens needed to tell Alaskans what is happening with his investigation. And some of the other reporters were irked at Outside media asking them to get on the Stevens case for them, feeling they're too focused on that instead other important stories. And they make remarks about the Parachute Journalists who write stories from Alaska but don't understand the context because they are only here a short time. There's a skepticism about whether the FBI will actually get the quid pro quo smoking gun on Stevens. On the other hand, another reporter said he was sure Stevens won't run in 2008.


4. Adjusting to the new technological realities. The ADN website is evolving quickly and well. Sean slips out of the courtroom regularly and down to the cafeteria wi-fi to send in his reports. And the Alaska Report is an electronic news digest with links and comment area. In addition there are various blogs. It's much, much more than the print published on line. The stories in the print version have little boxes referring readers to the web.

5. I'm still figuring out my role in all this. Unlike the regular media, I'm shy about asking the attorneys questions or calling people up to get more information. I don't want to stick my camera in people's faces. Though I have less guilt doing that to journalists - figuring that if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Regulars in the court room go from nodding to saying hi to introducing themselves and talking. Thus I've been talking a little the last few days with Sen. Fred Dyson whose been there regularly and has been discussed in the trial in different ways - mainly as the person who drove Allen to meet the FBI investigators for the first time. The regular reporters have to talk to these people, but it also means their objectivity gets changed as those relationships get better. The extreme version seems to be the White House press who get used by the administration for strategic leaks. And if they don't treat the administration well, they lose their sources. Like with the lobbyists, I guess people have to realize that reporters like them for their stories, not for who they are. But obviously the professional and personal relationships get mixed up.

6. As I'm creating my journalistic identity, I think my role model is Tom Wolfe . Given his bigger than life image, I should clarify how. Certainly not sartorially and not in flamboyance. But in trying to bring meaning to the story by looking at the context beyond the story in the spotlight. I find myself looking at all the actors, not just those on the stage in the spotlight. I've done this with pictures that give a sense of the background of the trial - the clerk's office where I can use the computer to download documents; the cafeteria where the Kott party eats in one section and various journalists in other sections. Filling in the less obvious facts. And I also enjoy a freedom to speculate about possible interpretations of what we're seeing. Since the press is such a critical part of all this, they really should be subjects for the media as well.

Of course, if I were a better journalists, I'd have more information about my photos. In this post, at the top are camera folks waiting for photo subjects to walk out of court. Another one of the artists with her sketch book as she was walking into the Federal Building. Finally, three journalists during a break, with Rich Mauer in the center.

Kott Trial - Three Cheers for the Press

The Anchorage Daily News got copies of all the government's tapes used in the trial - the wire taps and the video from the Baranof Suite 604 - and has emailed the local media how to download them.

Hello news directors/news organizations. This is David Hulen, I'm the assistant managing editor for news at the Anchorage Daily News. After several weeks of trying -- with huge help from John McKay -- we were able today to get from the government all of the exhibits that have been introduced by the prosecution in the Kott trial.

We are the pool for this material and we're making it available via FTP server as we did with similar material during the Anderson trial. Instructions on how to download are below.

A couple notes: The quality of the material is a huge improvement from what you hear in the courtroom or what some of us have been grabbing off the official courtroom recordings. The quality of the video recordings inside Suite 604 is pretty good, too. Here's the hitch: There are no dates on the audio files. I think they're listed by exhibit number, although I havent had time to check that for sure, and I'm not sure the exhibit numbers, if that's what they are, are in sync with what actually was entered into evidence. So you're on your own to figure out what's what. The videos at least have a time stamp.

If I've missed media that would be interested in this material, please let me know and I'll get in touch.

Ray Metcalfe, who was in court today, has been accusing Ben Stevens of ethics violations for years, but no one wanted to listen. This is a giant civics lesson for Alaska. But it's important that we not walk away thinking all politicians are crooks. Rather, that we learn to listen carefully and to distinguish those who are honest and dedicated from those who would sell their office for their own gain. And we need to ask more about the corporations that sprinkle our non-profits with donations. Are they doing the same with our politicians? The testimony in the trial is raising the issue that the big oil companies let Veco do their dirty work here, while ostensibly keeping their hands clean. If it wasn't clear before, it's clear from this trial, that Metcalfe's tenacity is likely to see Stevens' indictment before long.

I'll be checking through some of this material that is now available, but I'm not sure if I have the time to post all or even any of it. But I'm sure it will be widely available soon through other media websites. The Daily News has already been posting portions of the daily audio from the trial. If you haven't heard it, go listen. They've picked some of the highlights.

High school and university teachers!!!! Are you listening? This, and the cd's of the trial itself are great materials for Alaska history, for government, and other classes.

This really is a chance for people to get a real understanding of the facades some politicians put on. People really do hold important bills up if other legislators don't vote their way.

And this is must listening for all legislators. Sitting in court would have been a better way to go, but this is second best.

This is all due to the fact that the Daily News and KTUU hired attorney John McKay to represent them as interested parties in this case to get access to the materials in the case. Thanks for this public service! You can find some of the audio here - in the middle of the page.

Kott-Weyhrauch Pre-Trial 4 - Sparring over Technical Matters

The government's attorneys have said they now want to split the two cases so they can appeal the judge's ruling not to include the claim that Kott and Weyhrauch were required by state law to disclose that they were negotiating with VECO for jobs.

Weyhrauch had tried to sever the cases before and the government opposed it. Now the government wants them severed so they can appeal the ruling in Weyhrauch's case, but not Kott's. They have lots of other things on Kott.

Weyhrauch's attorney, Doug Pope, argued that a case in the 9th circuit allowed the judge to dismiss charges if he found the Government was using the appeal as a delaying tactic. So things are in recess as the judge reads the related cases.

On another note, I mentioned that John McKay is the attorney for KTUU and the Daily News who are 'interested parties' in the case. One thing he's gotten for them is that journalists can now bring the cell phones past the security.

More later.

Kott/Wehrauch Pre-Trial 2 The Other Attorneys

Finding information on the attorneys for the Government is more difficult. So I'll serve up what little I can. The Court Documents I looked at Friday listed the following attorneys for the government:

Joseph W. Bottini
James A. Goeke
Edward P. Sullivan

We learn a little more about each from this FBI press release May 4, 2007, when the grand jury indictments were released. Marsh worked with Bottini on the Anderson trial.

This case is being prosecuted by trial attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska. The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigative Division.

From the United States Attorney Office - District of Alaska webpage. we learn about some past US Attorneys in Alaska:

United States Attorney - Later Years

Other prominent United States Attorneys served this district. Joseph W. Kehoe (1934-1942) gained recognition as a watercolor artist of Alaskan scenes. Warren N. Cuddy (1929-1933) founded the First National Bank of Anchorage, one of Alaska's two largest banking enterprises. Ralph Julian Rivers (1933-1944) was Alaska's first elected Representative in Congress, serving from 1959 to 1966. Theodore Fulton (Ted) Stevens was appointed in Fairbanks from 1954 to 1956 and later elected Senator in 1968. Michael Spaan (1981-1989) served the longest term as a United States Attorney for this district. He also personally tried the longest criminal case in the history of the state which resulted in RICO, fraud, and extortion convictions of two well-known lobbyists and political brokers. Spaan also gained widespread reputation for this vigorous enforcement of laws designed to protect Alaska's rich fishing grounds.

What I hadn't expected to see was an attorney listed for the Anchorage Daily News and KTUU, who were listed as "interested parties." Their attorney is John McKay. An article from April 2007 about him receiving the First Amendment Award from the Alaska Press Club says:

McKay's many legal victories include a unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision about the people's right to know the details of legal-settlement payments after a public institution such as a school district gets sued.
McKay's fingerprints are all over Alaska's open meetings and open records law and its interpretation, be that testifying at hearings, arguing in court, leading open-government workshops, publishing open-government handbooks, or offering legal advice to a reporter, an elected official or just an average citizen.
He's taught communication law at the University of Alaska Anchorage since 1984. He has helped train Russian journalists. He's defended educators punished for exercising their free speech rights. And on and on.

For more go here.

I was a bit curious about the media being an interested party, when who should walk in? John McKay himself. So I asked him what his role in all this was. He said it was to petition to keep the as much of the trial open to the public as possible and to get access to evidence - such as the audio and video materials the Federal Government uses in the trials - as soon as possible. He said it took a month to get the video from the Anderson trial, for example.