Secrecy in public life

Earlier this week, I covered a school board meeting for one of the suburban daily newspapers, and I encountered a woman who had never been to such a session before.

In fact, the woman had just moved to suburban Calumet City a few months earlier, after living her entire life in Chicago where she had come to accept the political culture of the city.

WHAT CAUGHT MY attention about her was her mystification about the fact that the local school board consisted of elected members, while the board of education for the Chicago Public Schools is a government body consisting of mayoral appointees.

“You go to a Chicago school board meeting, and those people act in secret. You don’t have a clue what they did, or why?,” she told me.

My initial reaction was to chuckle, because I happen to know people who think that particular school board (for the local high schools) is overly secretive, or inept, or whatever other hostile terminology their minds can concoct.

But it also popped into my mind again when I read a report by WBEZ-FM radio, which did a story about just how secretive the political culture of the Chicago Public Schools truly is.

MY OWN FIRST-HAND experience in dealing with the Chicago Public Schools as a reporter-type person is about two decades old. I haven’t been to a school board meeting in Chicago in years.

But somehow, I doubt that much has changed. In fact, if the Public Radio report is at all accurate, nothing at all has changed.

Which is why I find it interesting that incoming school board President David Vitale (NOT the incoming superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard, who will wind up being the public “face” of the schools who will get the blame – or praise – for whatever happens with regards to public education in Chicago) is willing to admit there are potential problems with the degree to which the board is “open” about doing “the people’s business.”

“My own view is that we need to be totally transparent. My bias is that the public has a right to be engaged, and I expect to follow that bias,” Vitale told WBEZ.

PERSONALLY, MY RECOLLECTIONS of dealing with Chicago Public Schools officials is of having an administration and bureaucratic structure to support it that is so large it makes the getting of information about schools activity overly-complex.

Too many people don’t know what their colleagues are doing, and often only know such a small piece of information that they don’t fully appreciate how it fits into the “big” picture.

All that means is that I believe the problem in getting a clear understanding of what is happening is because of the “ignorance” of the public officials, not any “corrupt” or “lying” nature. And when I say “ignorance,” I don’t necessarily mean they’re stupid. Just uninformed.

It is why I often joke that the act of being a news reporter covering a story is similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle – only someone snatched away the box cover so you don’t know exactly what it’s supposed to look like when you’re done and someone may have snatched a few pieces of the puzzle when you weren’t looking.

IF THEY’RE REALLY in a nasty mood, they may slip in a couple of pieces from a different puzzle, just to confuse you.

Not that I expect the whole world to cater to my work needs (the few people who are willing to make an effort are usually the ones who are just helpful to all people in general). But when some people want to rant about the general incompetence of newsgathering organizations, perhaps it ought to be kept in mind that this is one of the factors at stake that can result in news stories with gaping holes of information or trivial tidbits or pompous rhetoric emanating from the mouths of public officials who are trying to pass themselves off as informed public servants.

And this attitude is not restricted to the Chicago Public Schools, or that one suburban school district I covered earlier this week, or any one government panel. It happens all too often at all levels of government.

So I’m curious to see how literally Vitale’s words are taken to be transparent.

BECAUSE THERE’S ALWAYS the chance that “transparency” might not tell us anything significant about the way our public officials in the school system are handling things.

It might actually just inform us about how little they truly understand what they are doing with the dollars they derive from our local property taxes.

While that kind of information is helpful for us to know on a certain level (so that perhaps we might take seriously the idea of finding better-qualified people come the next election cycle, rather than just accepting the same old people in those posts), it doesn’t help improve the level of public service.

  -30-

Picking one's battles, presidential-style

There are times when I watch President Barack Obama at work and wonder if he ever thinks to himself about wishing he were in a less high-profile position. Such as back at the Statehouse Scene trying to craft public policy, and spending his off-hours in low-stakes poker games with people like failed lieutenant governor candidate Terry Link and possibly-failed gubernatorial hopeful Kirk Dillard?

I wonder that because when I read about some of the “no-win” situations in which the president has been put, it makes me think that maybe he wishes he had never been so ambitious to want to be a part of the federal government – let alone oversee it.

I’M NOT WRITING about anything as major as health care reform or the nation’s immigration laws (where he’s going to “lose” no matter what side or action he takes). I’m talking about the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet (which China refuses to recognize and takes great offense that the United States does).

When the Dalai Lama was in Washington last week, he got to come to the White House and got a few minutes of “face time” with which to discuss his situation (ie., confronting a China that would prefer he be obliterated) on the international scene.

Personally, I think it says more about China than the Dalai Lama that they consider him to be a subversive element. So I’m glad to see that Obama was willing to include a meeting with him, even though it meant going through such mechanizations as having the two talk informally in the White House “map room,” rather than in any place ornate enough that usually would be used to celebrate ties between a world leader and the Obama administration. This image of President Barack Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama is being dismissed by some as "propaganda." What do you think? Photograph provided by the White House.

But that also means many of my colleagues were cut off from being able to see the two talk, and weren’t able to get any photographs of their own. The White House issued its own photo of the two (the shot included with this commentary), although many news organizations are refusing to use it on the grounds that it constitutes materials best described as “propaganda.”

SO NOW, HE has the press corps having hissy fits, in addition to Chinese officials upset that any kind of contact took place last week.

I would guess Obama justifies the restrictions on the grounds that the outcry from China had he given the Dalai Lama an all-out reception to recognize him would have been so intense that he’d rather put up with an irritated Washington Post.

After all, the last time I checked, the Post didn’t have long-range nuclear weapons like China does (and their ally, North Korea, appears to possess the materials to make).

He’s picking his battles, figuring few people will care enough to get that worked up. He may be right. This “controversy” may be long forgotten by week’s end (I would hope more people would get concerned about whether or not Republican politicos try to cooperate with Obama and his Democratic allies on health care reform).

IF THIS COMMENTARY reads like I’m not getting all bent out of shape about this issue, perhaps it is because I realize that at the highest levels of international policy there is going to be a certain amount of secrecy and limited access.

The practical part of me realizes that the Dalai Lama came to the White House, got the “face time” that will be perceived as positive by the Tibetan monk’s worldwide followers and that reporters at the White House were even able to corner him afterwards when he tried to leave the White House.

The reporter in me expects occasionally to have to hustle to get a story, and also realizes there are some ramifications to events that can involve certain limits. If that means a live photograph wasn’t obtained, that is a shame. For the biggest “complaint” I can make out of this whole affair is that the official White House photograph (taken by one-time Chicago Tribune photographer Pete Souza) is that it is kind of a boring shot.

The two men talking to each other, with a teacup on the table near the Dalai Lama. What does he take in his tea? Somehow, I think the world will “survive” without the answer to that particular question, although we did find out that the Dalai Lama was supportive of Tiger Woods.

NOW I KNOW some of my colleagues like to link all attempts to restrict access to information as being equal. They’re not.

This incident involving our former state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood is not as significant as the Illinois Senate’s behavior last week when they had their private briefing of state finances. Upon learning the material that was presented, there really was no legitimate reason for not letting everybody else learn the data simultaneously. Not like ticking off China by too openly greeting the Lama.

One other aspect of this “issue” to keep in mind. This probably won’t be the last time (or even the most egregeous) that the Obama administration gets accused of keeping something secret from, “the American people.”

If it is, then that fact alone would probably qualify the Obama years as one of the most open in U.S. history. I’m not naïve enough to expect that, not from any government official.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The Associated Press is upset that they weren’t allowed to take their own generic (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004069009) posed photograph of Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama engaging in a brief chat.

If the best that some reporter-types could come up with for news from a talk with the Dalai Lama was (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/dalai-lama-agrees-with-tiger-whoever-he-is-1906493.html) to ask about Tiger Woods and infidelity, then maybe some limits weren’t misguided.

Is the real secret how little our legislators comprehend government finance?

When I learned (by reading the Chicago Tribune, I must admit) that the Illinois Senate convened at the Statehouse in Springpatch on Wednesday in a session closed to the public, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a similar moment that occurred just over a decade ago.

It was the late 1990s, and I was a Statehouse-based reporter-type person in those days. The “event” was that the Illinois Legislature was becoming technologically advanced. For the first time ever, laptop computers were installed on the desks of each and every legislator, along with all the connections necessary to operate such devices.

I KNOW SOME younger types are going to find it absurd that it ever was NOT like this, but the flow of paper for bills and other documents relevant to Illinois government was essential to keeping things running. This was the beginning of encouraging legislators to call up such information on their laptops, rather than have to have so much paper.

The “similar” moment I am referring to was the specific day when, with all the new equipment installed, it was thought necessary to sit all the legislators down in the chamber and give them a technical display of how everything worked. What was it that the public was truly kept in the dark about concerning the Illinois Senate?

For some legislators who were older or just not inclined to want to use computers at all moments of the day, it amounted to “Computer Science 101.” I remember that particular session was closed off to the public. I even recall the curtains that were put up over the windows up high from which people could look down upon the lawmakers at work.

I remember being told that the reason for the secrecy (I suppose state officials preferred the word “privacy”) was to make the less-computer literate legislators feel more comfortable about learning how to use the device. Some of them might have been embarrassed if their computer illiteracy had been so brutally unveiled.

YES, I COULD easily envision one of the television-types putting together a humorous story about a hometown legislator who keeps blipping crucial government information out of existence because he just can’t get the hang of that blasted laptop.

Now, we have the Illinois Senate behaving in a similar fashion. The Tribune went so far as to use the newspaper’s website to update the story by telling us how their reporter was physically barred from the Senate chamber when he tried to enter Wednesday morning.

The newspaper even included a diatribe from Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who said the session legally could be closed to the public because no actual government business would take place. So long as that fact remains true (no votes on any bills), he probably is legally correct.

As Cullerton told the Tribune, “this is meant to be one where just the senators are there to get information, but where they can also feel they can ask questions and … have a free exchange of ideas without having to be worried about what the press might report.”

SO WHAT WAS the point of Wednesday?

The National Conference of State Legislatures, a Denver-based group of government geeks who take particular joy in following the political activity at the 50 state capitols, was to give a presentation about government finances – which anyone who is paying attention realizes are a complete mess in Illinois.

Defenders of the “closed” session contended that since they planned to have the conference’s people talk to reporters later in the day, the information presented ultimately will become public.

But it is a shame they had to take this route, because now the focus will become a question of why couldn’t everybody else find out this financial information at the same time as the 59 senators.

IN FACT, WHEN I re-read Cullerton’s comment, I can’t help but get the sense of déjà vu (not the Springfield-based strip club). Were legislative leaders afraid we’d see, once and for all, just how clueless individual senators were about the state’s financial situation? It could be.

Unless there has been a significant improvement in the education of government officials in the years since I left the Statehouse Scene, the reality is that most of the 177 members of the General Assembly are plugged into their home communities, and usually can discuss the specifics of what a budget offers for their local residents (ie, voters).

But few of those legislators have the time, energy or interest to try to see the big picture. For some of them, the little picture (“pork”) is all that matters. For others, they’re less capable than you or me of understanding that “big” financial picture.

Of course, it also is a consequence of the way in which so much of state Legislature activity is dominated by the four legislative leaders, with the regular legislators only being included at the exact moment when a vote by the whole General Assembly is required.

KEEP THEM IGNORANT long enough, and you create a situation where leadership (although admittedly, this seems to be a directive of the Democratic leaders, with Republicans saying they’re going along in hopes of encouraging “bipartisan” cooperation in the future) has to go to extremes to cover it up.

Which also means the next time you ponder to yourself just how those knuckleheads (or whatever choice phrase you choose to use to describe legislators) could have voted in such a stupid manner on a budget or any issue, keep this “ignorance” factor in mind.

He/she was probably just going with the flow, so to speak.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I must credit the Chicago Tribune for doing the actual work of rooting out (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/illinois-senate-meets-in-secret-today.html#more) this story.

A copper in the clink? I doubt it

When it comes to police, it doesn’t matter what city you’re in or what department you’re talking about. There’s a common attitude at work of wanting to keep quiet about internal matters.

Which is why it doesn’t surprise me at all that police Supt. Jody Weis’ initial attitude toward a court order telling him to turn over lists of police officers who have at least five complaints filed against them is to tell the judge to stuff it.

WEIS IS REFUSING to provide the list, which is being sought by attorneys for a woman who claims her son was abused by police. Attorneys want to know how many police officers have multiple complaints of abuse filed against them so they can try to show a pattern of the Chicago Police Department downplaying (if not outright ignoring) allegations of improper police behavior.

Privately, the news organizations of Chicago have found that the list could contain as many as 2,500 names of police officers, and some of them may have as many as 60 or more complaints against them.

In short, this list has the potential to make the Chicago Police Department look stupid – and cause many people to bring up their memories of the 1968 Democratic Convention and the way police went off on anti-war protesters (behavior that was later labeled by future Gov. Dan Walker as a “police riot”).

By refusing to provide the list, Weis puts himself in contempt of court, since a judge overseeing the lawsuit has said the defense attorneys have a justifiable reason to want to see the information.

SO THE BIG question floating around City Hall and other circles where urban policy are pondered is, “What will happen Monday?”

For Monday is the deadline provided by U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman to either provide the list, or come up with a good enough reason why Weis should not be held in contempt of court.

Somehow, I can envision a police superintendent being stubborn enough to think he should be able to decide for himself what is legally appropriate for himself to turn over to anyone else. Which means I don’t think he will voluntarily cough up a copy of the list.

Nor do I think he’ll try to come up with anything resembling a reason for not turning it over. At least nothing that goes more deep than, “None of your business.”

SO WILL GETTLEMAN have the guts to issue that contempt ruling? Will we get the sight of a Chicago police superintendent being hauled off by federal marshals to a lockup, then off to the Metropolitan Correctional Center located in the South Loop?

In the case of Weis, it would be even more ironic, because he’s not the traditional Chicago cop who likes to take pride in coming out of the city neighborhoods and working his way up through the ranks.

Weis is a former G-man, the FBI. Could we literally have a former federal law enforcement officer being locked up at the MCC with other people facing federal criminal charges – looking out at the South Loop through those thin slits that pass for windows in the cells so that inmates can’t try to climb through them to escape?

The potential image is just too much, and I can’t help but think the backlash Gettleman would face from other people who like to think of themselves as being part of law enforcement or the justice system would be too much.

SO COULD IT be that both Weis and Gettleman will spend these weekend days trying to figure out a way for each of them to save face, so that both can try to “spin” the story to claim they were not the ones who “gave in” to public pressure.

What is sad about this saga is that the idea of providing such information has become such a cause among law enforcement.

It comes from a mentality that exists among many law enforcement types I have encountered throughout the years that they have to take a few shortcuts from the way they technically should do their job, in order to ensure a greater good of protecting the public safety.

If that means an occasional punk gets smacked about, some cops can justify it in their minds. And many more aren’t about to tell on their colleagues.

THAT IS WHAT this is about.

Weis, a guy who already draws mistrust from some Chicago police types because he’s former FBI (rather than some guy who grew up in Beverly or Sauganash and graduated from the Chicago Police Academy), is falling into the attitude of thinking that this list of potential police problem officers is something that is no one else’s business.

If he had willingly coughed up the list when it was requested Wednesday, he would have incurred the wrath of his police colleagues.

In fact, when it comes to taking the attitude of “no one else’s business,” it is a viewpoint that is worked into the actual contracts the city has with its police officers (and which many police departments have as well).

ANY REPORTER-TYPE WHO tries to write stories about incidents involving activity by the police themselves knows exactly how little information can be provided about a police officer.

The idea that these officers have a right to privacy means that someone can literally get in trouble legally by making public information about potential wrong-doing by a cop.

One of the jokes often passed about is that if a police officer ever really wanted to commit murder, he ought to just go ahead and kill the person and make no effort to cover up. Because those union regulations would prevent police from telling anyone about the rogue officer in their midst.

That may be an exaggeration, but it is the same basic mentality that has Weis thinking he did the right thing this week when he risked the wrath of a federal judge by refusing to turn over “the list.”

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Jody Weis claims that turning over the list would damage the (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-weis-contemptmar05,0,3021793.story) reputations of some police officers because some of the repeat offenses are misdemeanors.