|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
|
![]() |
The [Tuesday] Papers"The city of Chicago paid out about $670,000 last year to plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging that officials violated open records law - nearly five times what the city paid in the previous eight years combined," the Tribune reports. "Experts and attorneys said the mounting payouts in Freedom of Information Act cases raise concerns about Mayor Rahm Emanuel's pledge to run 'the most open, accountable and transparent government that the city of Chicago has ever seen.'" Because up until now that pledge was being fulfilled? "Concerns" are just now being "raised?" In 2012, Rahm told the Tribune's David Kidwell his definition of transparency: This is where you have narrowed the word of transparency. There is nothing more transparent than standing up in front of the City Council calling for an increase in water rates to go to pay for a critical crisis that is in our city. That's fully transparent. That was a year after I wrote "Rahm's Fake Transparency" in December 2011. Hell, Rahm wasn't even transparent during his first campaign for mayor when he was making the pledge to be the most transparent ever. Instead, the story's frame ought to be Rahm upping the ante - with taxpayer money - in his continued battle against transparency, not the lukewarm question of whether he may be falling short of his (insincere) pledge. Beyond that, for perspective, it would be relevant to note if Rahm's administration is even more secretive than the administration of Richard M. Daley. And if that's so, which I suspect it is, it would be worth considering if his is the most non-transparent (anti-transparent, even) administration in modern Chicago history. Dig into the question. * "Jeffrey M. Shaman, a DePaul University professor who teaches constitutional law and the First Amendment, said the city's spike in lawsuits and payments 'makes one wonder if the city is willing to comply in good faith with the requirements of FOIA.'" Makes one wonder? Again, if anyone is still wondering if Rahm's administration is willing to act in good faith when it comes to FOIA, they've been in a coma for five years. But instead of detailing the myriad ways City Hall has stymied reporters (and citizens) and twisted FOIA into an Orwellian tool of obfuscation, we get this: In a Law Department statement, the city said it "works diligently to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and responds to thousands of public information requests each year, with only a small percentage of requests disputed." Nobody knows the falsity of that statement better than the Tribune, which, as the article breezily notes, is one of several organizations involved in the 27 FOIA lawsuits that accounted for last year's payout, which, frankly, is arguably a lot less than it should've been. Few folks have the resources to fight these cases to conclusion - or even to begin the fight. Asked how the city justifies the amount paid out over open records lawsuits, the Law Department said the most common reason it's been sued are "claims of incomplete record searches and incorrectly applied exemptions." First, how do you let the city get away with providing a statement in a story about transparency? Second, is the statement remotely true? If so, city officials are the good guys! They're protecting FOIA! * Guess who else provided a statement? The Tribune! "We are disappointed that we continually need to resort to litigation to get access to documents the law requires be made public as a matter of course," Karen Flax, the Tribune's vice president for legal, said in a statement. "The uptick in lawsuits reflects the city's disregard for the importance of the open records law and the fact that the city is understaffed in this area. It is pay now or pay later: If the city would produce the records to which the public is entitled in the first place, we would not need to file lawsuits and incur legal fees which the city then needs to cover." That sounds great, but can we ask you some questions now? - Dear Media: Please resolve for 2017: No more statements; especially on stories about transparency. It's much more powerful - and accurate - to say that officials refused to answer questions, which is what they're doing. Also: No more journalese, like "raises concerns." Think harder about frames. The angle, and trajectory, of a story matters. Finally, tell it like it is; you don't have to be "diplomatic" to be fair - especially if it introduces mistruths into the proceedings. - On The Beachwood New today . . . Detentions, Suspension & Expulsion Do Not Curb Violent Behavior In All His Wildest Dreams - From Taint Week . . . Beachwood Photo Booth: American Housemates Dear Chicago Will Trump Be A Tyrant? Some Classical Pointers The Fight In 2016 To Rein In NSA Surveillance 2016 Was Totally Awesome! (For Billionaires) The New Student Loan Crisis Happy Christmas From Jonathan Pie Jonathan Pie: 2016 In Review Peabody Preparing To Shift Mine Cleanup Costs To Public? The Beachwood Radio Sports Hour's 2016 In Review: The Cubbie Effect The Blue & Orange Kool-Aid Report SportsMonday: Get To Work, Bears The Weekend In Chicago Rock The Week In Chicago Rock The Weekend In Chicago Rock - BeachBook Deustche Bank An Example Of Banking's Immorality. * Surveillance Without Borders. * Chicago Teens Now Have Free Access To The Art Institute. - TweetWood
*
* — Beachwood Reporter (@BeachwoodReport) January 1, 2017 *
* — Beachwood Reporter (@BeachwoodReport) December 31, 2016 *
*
*
*
- The Beachwood Tronc Line: Do your job. Posted on January 3, 2017 |
![]() |
![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() © 2006 - 2021, The Beachwood Media Company |