A "Tie" to Politics

Institute updates FOIA guidebook to reflect changes

By Barton Lorimor, Institute staff, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

On behalf of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, I am pleased to offer the latest edition of our guidebook to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.

The new edition includes amendments to Chapter Four, which outlines exemptions to FOIA requests. It also updates the section of Chapter One that outlines changes proposed during the spring 2011 session of the Illinois General Assembly.

Please click here to be redirected to the Web page where the revised guidebook can be downloaded free of charge.

Please notice the legislation that passed the House and Senate identified in Chapter One as it may have a great impact on how individuals receive the information they seek. The Institute will be tracking these bills and make adjustments to this guidebook if necessary.

This ongoing project is the result of efforts put in by a number of people here at the Institute and former Illinois statehouse reporter Adriana Colindres. Our continued thanks to them as well as the Office of the Illinois Attorney General for keeping this guide updated. We also extend our thanks to the Illinois Press Association in their efforts to make this guidebook more available to the public and members of the media.

When it was first proposed, the goal of this guidebook was to help journalists and the general public understand the state’s new FOIA law. It not only meets that goal but also serves as a record of how the laws have changed since its implementation in January 2010. In some instances, information that was once available to the public through FOIA is now restricted.

Because this is an ongoing project, we hope anyone with suggestions on how we can better the guidebook or its distribution would contact the Institute at: 618-453-4009.

Yepsen: Consider California, Florida redistricting models

So where do we go from here on redistricting reform in Illinois? Florida and California might have some answers.

The 2011 session of the Illinois Legislature is in the process of redrawing legislative and congressional district lines to reflect population changes in the state. Historically, this has been a controversial process in Illinois, one that often contributes to public cynicism and disgust for its secretive and backroom nature.

Efforts to change this process failed last year. There was a lack of consensus in how to proceed in the Legislature and a late start in trying to execute a ballot initiative. › Continue reading

Freivogel: Medill prof fights to prove his own innocence

By William H. Freivogel, visiting professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

In 2009, when a prosecutor went to court to force David Protess to release information compiled by journalism students working on his famous Innocence Project, Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism came to the defense of the popular, pugnacious professor. After all, Protess had made the school famous for having helped free 12 men who had been wrongfully convicted, including five from death row.

Two years later, the university and Protess are in an ugly fight. The university removed him from his classroom, claiming he made misleading statements to its lawyers. Protess responded by accusing the university of conducting a “smear campaign” in search of a fall guy.

One issue in the dispute is whether Protess’ students are covered by the Illinois “Shield Law” permitting reporters to protect confidential sources and information. The university, which at first was ready to defend the reporters’ privilege of the students, now says that Protess hid the fact that he had provided confidential student memos relating to a murder case to a defense lawyer. By providing the memos to the lawyer, Protess may have waived the privilege, the university says.

In explaining its decision to back away from Protess, the university said in a statement this month it had “uncovered numerous examples of Protess knowingly making false and misleading statements to the dean, to University attorneys, and to others. Such actions undermine the integrity of Medill, the University, the Innocence Project, students, alumni, faculty, the press, the public, the State and the Court.”

In 2008 it looked as though the case of Anthony McKinney was the latest of Protess’ triumphs. Based on evidence largely collected by Protess and his journalism students, lawyers went to court to seek a new trial for McKinney, who had been convicted of the 1978 murder of a security guard in Harvey, Ill. Protess’ students found a witness who said McKinney was not present at the murder scene.

Protess recently told a reporter for the Chicago Reader that “Of all the many investigations I’ve ever been involved with, this was about the most airtight case of innocence.”

“If the McKinney case had been handled the way law enforcement has handled every one of my cases, Anthony McKinney would have been released two years ago.”

But Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez did not react the way others had. Instead she was suspicious of the tactics used by the students, calling into question the $40 of cab fare that students paid to the witness who said McKinney was not at the murder scene.

Alvarez went to court in 2009 seeking 11 categories of information including “notes, memoranda, reports and summaries” prepared by the students. She also sought the students’ grades, Protess’ course syllabus and grading criteria.

Judge Diane Cannon refused to force Protess to turn over the grades, but, based on the account in the Chicago Reader, appeared unconvinced student journalists should be covered by the Shield law.

“Is someone who has a Web site a journalist?” she reportedly said at a hearing in June, 2010. “And if I’m going to make that decision, I think it will be good news to all the parents in this state that they now have journalists for children.”

Around the time of the hearing, Sidley Austin, the firm representing the university and Protess, concluded it had received misleading information about the student work. It withdrew from the case and the university hired Jenner & Block to conduct an inquiry into what had happened. Former prosecutors at the law firm imaged the hard drives of Protess’ computer.

The university said the inquiry found Protess “sent them a falsified communication in an attempt to hide the fact that the student memos had been shared with Mr. McKinney’s lawyers” in December 2009.

Protess had turned over a November 2007 email stating, “My position about memos, as you know, is that we don’t keep copies….My position about memos, as you know, is that we share everything with the legal team, and don’t keep copies….”

In other words, Protess had removed the phrase about sharing the memos with the legal team.

The university maintains that Protess knew from the start that sharing the memos jeopardized that reporters’ privilege claim. But Protess says the university knew from the beginning the memos had been shared. He also maintains the altered email had a notation at the top saying that part was redacted.

Protess says the phrase he removed was inaccurate and he was altering the email to make it more truthful. By stating “everything” was turned over, the email suggested every student document was turned over to a lawyer for McKinney. In fact, many student documents were of a personal nature and never were included in the file turned over to the defense lawyer, he said.

Protess also said his wife had been fighting cancer at the time and his memory was not as clear for that reason.

Medill removed Protess from his signature class earlier this semester, leading students to protest his absence. Dean John Lavine met with the faculty behind closed doors earlier this month to present them with Jenner & Block’s findings. Then the university released its statement explaining the action.

In response, Protess called for an independent review of the entire matter and raised the question of whether Dean Lavine is acting “in retaliation” for Protess’ involvement in a 2008 scandal concerning quotes Lavine had used in a Medill alumni magazine. Protess spoke to students who might have made the statements quoted by the dean and found that none had. The university cleared Lavine although the source for the quotes was not identified.

“I want to be clear, I’m not accusing the dean of anything here,” Protess said in an interview with the Daily Northwestern this month. “I’m saying, ‘Let’s have an independent, impartial review that looks at the problems that have occurred in the past few years.’”

Protess, who has taken leave this semester, has started a new Chicago Innocence Project intended to involve journalism students from other journalism schools.

Meanwhile, McKinney remains locked up in the psychiatric unit of the state prison at Dixon, Ill.

Jackson testifies before Senate Redistricting Committee

By John S. Jackson, visiting professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

The following is an outline of the testimony Dr. Jackson submitted to the Illinois Senate Redistricting Committee’s meeting on April 21, 2011 in Carbondale, Ill.

I want to offer comments that are a mixture of the theoretical and the practical. I will offer a bit about what the federal and state constitutions require and what the standard textbooks say about redistricting. At the same time I want to acknowledge that practical politics is always a driving force in these decisions. I will close by advocating that in the future, getting ready for the next round in 2020, the state should adopt a constitutional amendment which changes the way this process is done. › Continue reading

Freivogel: SCOTUS strongly defending free speech

By William H. Freivogel, visiting professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

The Roberts court, with the chief justice in the lead, is amassing a strong free speech record by refusing to carve out new exceptions to the First Amendment and by expanding the frontiers of free speech in the areas of campaign finance and hate speech.

This month’s 8-1 decision protecting the virulently anti-gay speech of the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., is the most recent of a series of important free speech decisions by the Roberts court.

Last term the court ruled that corporations could use treasury funds to support political candidates in the weeks leading up to the election. It also threw out a federal law punishing depictions of animal cruelty. Court observers expect the court to toss out California’s law against violent video games for juveniles when it hands down its decision in that case later this year. › Continue reading

Jackson: The spring of our discontent

By John S. Jackson, visiting professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

I am a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. Actually, I pay dues for my mother who is the official member in the family. Since she can no longer manage her checkbook, I take care of paying her bills. She lived far out in the country in south Arkansas, and her house is insured, at a very reasonable rate, through the Arkansas Farm Bureau. As a result of her membership, she gets a very glossy magazine published by the Farm Bureau and I now read the magazine.

I was intrigued by the last issue which included a cover article on the Farm Bureau’s legislative agenda for the Arkansas Legislature and for the Congress in Washington, D.C. After the obligatory acknowledgement that it is a time of stress on the budgets for both state and national governments, the Farm Bureau then presented a lengthy list of legislative objectives it was pursuing. Included are the usual array of farm commodity price supports, support for irrigation, renewable energy and poultry programs, and a new initiative from the Obama Administration on the development of a Biomass Crop Assistance Program to help timber farms. Each initiative had a hefty price tag. › Continue reading

Freivogel: Justice Dept. investigation of NYT reporter questioned

By William H. Freivogel, Visiting Professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

The following is an excerpt from a story Bill Freivogel wrote for the St. Louis Beacon.

The Justice Department obtained the credit reports, credit card statements, personal bank records, travel records and telephone call information for New York Times reporter James Risen during its espionage investigation of St. Louisan Jeffrey Sterling, according to a recent court filing.

The disclosure is the latest indication of the unusual tactics used by the government in the prosecution of Sterling, a former CIA agent who once accused the agency of racial discrimination and later allegedly leaked information about a botched intelligence operation directed at Iran’s nuclear program.

Justice Department rules discourage the use of prosecutorial power in a way that “impairs a reporter’s responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues.” The rules normally require the approval of top Justice Department officials before prosecutors obtain a reporter’s personal phone records. The same requirement normally applies before prosecutors can call an attorney for a defendant such as Sterling before a grand jury. The purpose of the rules is to protect freedom of the press and the lawyer-client relationship.

CONTINUED AT THE ST. LOUIS BEACON >>

Yepsen provides Institute reaction to Ill. fy2012 budget address

Yepsen: Madigan offers straight talk about the budget

By David Yepsen, director, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan deserves credit for offering a little candor when it comes to the state budget mess in Illinois. He sounded Churchillian when he warned his colleagues recently that they “can’t kick the can down the road any further” on issues like unemployment benefits, health care for retired state workers and pensions.

“We’re all familiar with the inadequate funding of the state pension systems, he said. “Again, tough decision making, telling people you’re not going to get everything you thought you were going to get, telling people you may have to pay in more. Not easy stuff. So we better get ready for it.” › Continue reading

“There is no health without mental health”

By Dr. Linda Renee Baker, University Professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute

The tragic events that took place in Tucson, Ariz., last month gave me pause and sadly brought me back to discussions I had with mental health experts during my tenure as Illinois’ Secretary for Health and Human Services regarding the need for a comprehensive strategy relating to mental health.

Mental health funding and true insurance parity necessary to provide a seamless system of care for the mentally ill took a back seat to a host of other issues during the national health care debate and Illinois is considering cutting $100 million from the Department of Human Service’s fiscal year 2011 budget. But funding mental health generally only attracts the broader society’s attention in the aftermath of a significant event in which mental health played a causal or contributing role.

Our lawmakers can legislate whatever they deem necessary, but you cannot legislate away mental illness. These are the people in our midst who are the most vulnerable and who need the most help. The need for recognition and identification of youth with mental health problems has weighed heavily on my mind since the Arizona shootings. › Continue reading