[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Records/Archives in the News Part 03 01/17/00
Records/Archives in the News r991214a
There are 6 stories in this posting.
Newsday 12/14/99
Big political donor accused of shredding documents to thwart probe
Minneapolis/St.Paul Star-Tribune 12/13/99
New law requires businesses to destroy documents
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel 12/14/99
Judge?s Financial Reports Unreleased
Las Vegas Sun 12/14/99
Restriction on documents in AG probe angers targets
Savannah Morning News 12/12/99
Savannah police fail survey test
Savannah Morning News 12/12/99
In the shadows
_________________________________________________________________
Newsday 12/14/99
Big political donor accused of shredding documents to thwart probe
Associated Press
<SNIP>
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - One of the nation?s largest political donors faces
charges he shredded documents at one of his Bergen County businesses to
obstruct an investigation into campaign financing.
The FBI accuses David Chang of conspiring with a business aide, Audrey Yu, to
destroy records sought by federal grand juries investigating an $11,000 check
from one of his companies, Bright & Bright Corp.
A Bergen County lawyer who pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges in May
said he helped Chang illegally funnel $11,000 to Sen. Robert Torricelli?s
1996 campaign.
Chang, who has been in custody since his arrest Friday, was not charged with
making illegal contributions.
The Justice Department on Tuesday dropped its demand that Chang continue to
be detained, and agreed to $500,000 bail with electronic monitoring set by
U.S. Magistrate G. Donald Haneke.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Torricelli considers Chang ?a supporter and a friend,? said the Democratic
senator?s spokesman, Richard McGrath. Torricelli?s representatives have
maintained he was unaware when unlawful donations were made and that the
money went to charity.
?We?re gratified that all the information that came to light in these legal
proceedings once again reaffirms the true fact that neither Sen. Torricelli
nor anyone on our campaign did anything improper,? McGrath said.
The charges against Chang followed nearly three years of investigation,
culminating with government agents spending at least four months examining
Bright & Bright?s garbage, according to court papers filed by the FBI.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Yu, of Fort Lee, is listed in donation records as an executive at Bright &
Bright, or office manager or vice president at Panacom Inc., another Chang
company.
She is accused of lying to a grand jury about the shredding, according to a
five-count indictment that was unsealed with her arrest Dec. 6.
Her lawyer, Salvatore T. Alfano, attended Chang?s bail hearing on Tuesday,
and said she maintains her innocence. He she is now unemployed, but declined
to say when or why she left Chang?s employ.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Agents began recovering Bright & Bright trash from a bin outside its
Englewood Cliffs offices in June, generally finding one bag of shredded or
partially destroyed documents, including torn canceled checks, according to
FBI court papers. Ten bags were recovered on July 21 and another 21 were
recovered Sept. 21, court papers said.
The FBI searched the Bright & Bright offices on Oct. 1, seizing empty file
folders with labels indicating that documents sought by the grand jury ?once
had been enclosed? and computers from which documents were deleted ?but later
recovered by FBI computer experts.?
Bright & Bright?s chairman is a retired admiral, Daniel J. Murphy, who was
chief of staff for George Bush when he was vice president, and a deputy
director of the CIA, according to The Record of Hackensack.
<SNIP>
________________________________________________________________
Minneapolis/St.Paul Star-Tribune 12/13/99
New law requires businesses to destroy documents
by Anthony Jewell
Associated Press
<SNIP>
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Wisconsin businesses will have to be more vigilant in
destroying clients? financial or medical records under a law designed to
prevent so-called ? Dumpster diving??or using discarded papers to steal
identities.
? It? s standard practice for most businesses to shred, ? Rep. Steven Foti, a
Oconomowoc Republican and one of the law? s sponsors, said Monday. ? But we
want to make sure everybody does it, and this will help guarantee it.?
Under the law, which was included in the 1999-2001 state budget, businesses
will only be able to throw out records containing information such as Social
Security and credit card numbers if they shred or alter the documents to make
personal data unreadable.
Businesses that don? t properly destroy records can be fined up to $1, 000
per violation after the law takes effect Feb. 1. Businesses also can be held
liable in civil court for damages suffered by anyone whose personal
information is improperly thrown away.
A similar federal law will be in place in November 2000.
Officials at some major Wisconsin businesses and smaller offices said the law
requires something that is standard practice.
? We? ve already done this previously, ? said Yvonne Mueller, office manager
at Brookfield Surgical Associates in Milwaukee. ? We don? t throw anything
away unless it? s already destroyed, so nobody can pull anything off of
them.?
Kim Kindschi, deputy executive vice president of the Wisconsin Bankers
Association, said the law is a useful reminder to banks to vigilantly guard
records.
? It formalizes a process that most banks have had in place as a business
practice, ? he said. ? Consumer privacy ranks very, very high in terms of
maintaining customer relations.?
The law is designed to give Wisconsin residents additional protection from
identity theft, the unauthorized use of a person? s name, address, birth
date, Social Security number and mother? s maiden name.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Federal officials estimate that tens of thousands of people across the
country have their identities stolen each year. The 1998 federal law imposes
penalties of up to 15 years in prison and $250, 000 in fines on people
convicted of identity theft.
A 50-state survey conducted in October by the Privacy Journal found that
Wisconsin was among the 10 best states in protecting residents? privacy.
Among the reasons were strong patient confidentiality laws.
<SNIP>
________________________________________________________________
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel 12/14/99
Judge?s Financial Reports Unreleased
Associated Press
<SNIP>
Washington - A committee of federal judges refused Tuesday to release the
financial disclosure statements of some 1,600 federal judges and magistrates
to a news organization that planned to post the reports on the Internet.
Publishing reports on the Internet would not allow judges to determine if
there is a security risk in releasing the information, the committee said in
a statement released by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.
At the same time, the committee lifted a two-week-old nationwide moratorium
on other public access to the reports, filed each year by all federal judges.
Some 40 other requests for one or more financial report are pending.
APBnews.com, which had paid $2,516 to cover copying fees for 12,580 pages of
documents, said it intends to sue to win access.
``It?s time to take the court to court, and we will do so as quickly as we
can,?? said Mark Sauter, the organization?s chief operating officer.
``This may be the first time that the government has declared the Internet
off-limits for specific kinds of public documents,?? Sauter said. ``These
documents contain information that Congress has declared the public has the
right and need to know.??
``It?s an absurd result,?? added Gregg Leslie, acting executive director of
the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ``This really is going way
beyond any sort of reasonable protection of safety.??
Tuesday?s statement by the Administrative Office implied that any request for
information that mentions a plan to post the reports on the Internet will be
rejected. But requesters typically are not required to disclose their
dissemination plans.
Federal court officials routinely have made copies of reports available to
anyone who requests them after requesters identify themselves and disclose
their occupation.
``Federal judges have unique security concerns,?? said David Sellers,
spokesman for the Administrative Office. ``That?s why last year Congress
provided the Judicial Conference with special authority regarding the release
of their financial disclosure reports. Any action that threatens, compromises
or negates this authority must be taken very seriously.??
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Since 1979, federal judges and other high-ranking federal officials have been
required by federal law to report all stock holdings and other family assets
within broad ranges of estimated worth. They also must report gifts and other
reimbursements.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Sauter said other news organizations, such as WNBC and The Kansas City Star,
already have some judges? financial disclosure reports online. ``Does this
decision mean that those organizations are violating the law??? he asked.
<SNIP>
________________________________________________________________
Las Vegas Sun 12/14/99
Restriction on documents in AG probe angers targets
by Jeff German
<SNIP>
A district judge?s decision restricting disclosure of secret documents that
may show the attorney general?s office conducted an intelligence probe of
gaming regulators has angered some of those reportedly targeted.
After a hearing Monday, District Judge James Mahan ordered about 900 pages of
potentially explosive documents turned over to Phoenix lawyer Christine
Manno, but he slapped a protective order on the documents barring Manno from
disclosing them to the media and the public.
Mahan also refused to give Manno copies of eight hours of videotapes of Ron
Harris, a former state Gaming Control Board electronics expert who pleaded
guilty to slot cheating in August 1995 and cooperated with the attorney
general?s office. The judge, however, allowed Manno to view the tapes.
Afterward, Manno said that Mahan?s ruling amounted to essentially a gag
order.and that she was highly disappointed.
Manno represents Mike Anzalone, a former state investigator suing Attorney
General Frankie Sue Del Papa for forcing him to resign in February 1996
because he refused to participate in the intelligence probe. Anzalone, who
later became a target of the investigation, has been fighting for nearly two
years to obtain the documents to prove his case.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Richard Linstrom described Mahan?s order as
?thoughtful and fair.?
But Rex Carlson, a former Control Board lab manager who contends he was
wrongly targeted by Del Papa, criticized the judge?s decision.
?You have an agency here that may have abused its authority, and now you?re
essentially keeping that hidden from the public,? Carlson said.
?All of us targeted deserve to know the extent of the attorney general?s
investigation so that we may defend ourselves against any insinuation of
improprieties that may be contained in their records.?
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Manno pointed out that Discovery Commissioner Thomas Biggar, who oversees the
sharing of evidence in civil cases, had recommended that Mahan release the
documents without restrictions.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Among the documents ordered turned over to Manno and Anzalone are reports of
secret background checks on Bible and Frank Schreck, a political connected
gaming attorney who has raised campaign funds for the last three Nevada
governors.
<SNIP>
________________________________________________________________
Savannah Morning News 12/12/99
Savannah police fail survey test
City appears to violated state sunshine laws
by Pamela E.Walck
Savannah?s police department is withholding incident and arrest reports from
the public?a possible violation of state sunshine laws.
Otherwise, it?s relatively easy for the public to get access to documents
from a broad range of government offices, a survey of 14 area agencies found.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
The Savannah Morning News survey, similar to one conducted by newspapers
across the state in September, was done on Monday and Tuesday at 14
agencies?including city council, county commission and school board offices.
Only Savannah?s police department restricted access to public records.
Police Chief David Gellatly said his department will take steps to comply
with the law. He said his department receives ?very few? requests for such
information from the public.
?When we do, we try very hard to comply with the law,? Gellatly said. ?We
fully understand what the law is. It might very well be that we need some
training of personnel so that they know what the law is, too.?
Police Public Information Officer Bucky Burnsed defended Savannah?s practice.
?We had a reporter go up to the wrong desk, she does not identify herself as
a reporter, and says, ?I?d like to see the incident reports.? Now, Joe Q.
Public can?t do that,? Burnsed said.
David Hudson, a Georgia Press Association attorney, called that ?nonsense.?
Joe Q. Public can do exactly that.
Burnsed said all incident and arrest reports are off-limits to everyone but
those involved. Even then, the Savannah police require identification to see
a report. The only exception to the city?s rule is for news agencies, who
must provide police with a list of staff members.
Hudson said Savannah?s practices are in defiance of state law. He said recent
changes to the sunshine laws enforce make those documents available to anyone
who asks for them.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
The only exception allowed by the state is with Individual Georgia Uniform
Motor Vehicle Accident Reports, which requires people involved in wrecks to
show proper identification to get a copy of the report. The main reason is to
prevent ?ambulance chasers??often lawyers and insurance companies?from
preying on victims, Hudson said.
Although the police department has been notified of the violation, it doesn?t
plan to make any policy changes.
?We are not going to change our policy at this point,? Burnsed said. ?One
reason?and most notable?is our preliminary incident reports ... carry
confidential information that would violate the privacy of citizens. Namely,
their Social Security numbers.?
But Hudson said even that shouldn?t be an issue. Police departments can
redact?or delete?that particular information to guard the rights of others
and still protect the spirit of the sunshine law.
It?s a practice that is commonplace in such cities as Hinesville and Richmond
Hill.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
The only exceptions are accident reports and supplemental reports, which
officers use to document their case against an alleged suspect.
?If I deny you a report, I will show you the Georgia law that will state why
you can?t have a copy,? Dowd said. ?I?d rather have an informed public than
an uninformed one.?
<SNIP>
________________________________________________________________
Savannah Morning News 12/12/99
In the shadows
by Tom Bennett
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
<SNIP>
ATLANTA?Without sunshine laws, your city or county could raise taxes or build
a landfill just off your kitchen window without informing you. Yet after a
quarter-century of these laws, compliance across Georgia is spotty at best,
according to a first-ever survey.
What does that say to the state?s attorney general?
?It says to me that we were on the right track when we instituted and had
introduced and passed the 1998 statute that allows this office to get
involved in open records and open meetings,? said Thurbert Baker.
?We always had the ability to handle matters at the state level, but some of
the most complex issues we were hearing about and were unable to deal with
were at the local level.?
Ninety percent of Georgia cities, counties and universities surveyed in
September handed over public records. However, only 44 percent of city
police, county sheriffs and school superintendents did so.
Surveyors?reporters from Georgia newspapers?did meet many helpful local
officials.
?I?ve always tried to cooperate with the public, because they?re their
records,? said Karen Huey, Cherokee County clerk.
Yet a different spirit prevailed in Telfair County, where Sheriff David T.
Williams ran driver?s license and auto tag checks on the surveyor and
dispatched him empty-handed saying, ?Next time, send a woman!?
Ten newspapers and newspaper groups and the Georgia First Amendment
Foundation sent 75 surveyors on 316 face-to-face agency visits in a broad
geographic area from the mountains to the Okefenokee Swamp.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Meanwhile, 16 percent of the state?s counties and 12 percent of its cities,
have Web sites on the Internet. They can be found on the state-operated
Georgia Net and the home page of the Georgia Municipal Association.
A handful of these sites provide agendas and some even have the minutes of
meetings. These are primary documents that inform citizens whether their
government has done anything that affects their well-being, or is
contemplating doing so.
Yet people, not computers, can make what Barnes calls a more ?transparent?
government?one that Georgia citizens can see into.
?Technology in and of itself is helpful,? Baker said. ?But I think you?ve got
to have some people setting the policy and the tone for how that technology?s
going to be used to advance the causes of open government, and I think Gov.
Barnes and I have been very straightforward and very strong.?
<SNIP>
PETER A.KURILECZ CRM, CA
PAKURILECZ@AOL.COM
A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
*or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>