New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University

NOW WHO’S STUPID? GATES LAWYER REBUKES OBAMA

Sarah Favot and Maggie Mulvihill — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:56:46 +0000

Barack Obama’s legal mentor publicly scolded the president this week for inserting the White House into a debate about the controversial arrest of Obama’s friend, African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., by a white police sergeant last year.
Obama “blackened himself” by commenting on the low-level municipal arrest, turning it into an “international story,” said Harvard Law Professor Charles J. Ogletree before 100 people attending an event Thursday promoting Ogletree’s new book on racial injustice.
“He was the black president taking sides with the black professor,” Ogletree said. The second mistake Obama made was immediately labeling the incident one of racial profiling by discussing the long history of blacks and Latinos being stopped by police in this country, Ogletree said.
Obama said Sgt. James M. Crowley and the Cambridge Police acted “stupidly” by arresting Gates at his own home. The President later invited both Gates and Crowley to mend fences at a get-together now known as the White House “beer summit.”
Gates, 59, said at the time he was arrested because he was black.
Crowley said Gates was uncooperative and screaming at him while he inquired about a 911 report of a possible break-in at Gates’s Harvard Square home.
The disorderly conduct charge was dropped within days, but Obama’s comments triggered widespread debate and the establishment of a special police panel to review the incident.
The Cambridge Review Committee released a report this week stating the arrest was unnecessary and both men should have made attempts to “ratchet down” their behavior. The committee’s work cost Cambridge about $100,000, city records show.
The report follows last month’s New England Center for Investigative Reporting analysis of police reports over the past five years. The study found Cambridge Police arrest more whites than blacks for disorderly conduct, considered among the most discretionary criminal charge used by officers.
Gates has declined repeated requests to be interviewed in the past month.
But he has some regrets about last summer’s incident, Ogletree told an NECIR reporter following his speech at the Harvard Coop bookstore.
“Gates wants to put this behind him. He didn’t want to be the poster boy for racial profiling,” Ogletree said. “Now he has a better understanding of Crowley since meeting him.”
Ogletree said “common sense went out the window” during the encounter, which would not have occurred had both the suspect and police officer been female.
“Judgements were made that caused the situation to escalate,” Ogletree said about the behavior of both men.
Crowley last month said the NECIR report absolved him and the police force of racism. Following this week’s report, Crowley issued the following statement, which reads in part: “I’ve learned a lot through this process and I continue to be committed to the city of Cambridge, my responsibilities as a police officer and father, and my dedication to teaching fellow officers about the need for balancing tolerance and safety.”
Ogletree also said Gates was truly afraid of Crowley at the time of the incident.
“When he met Crowley at the White House, he said ‘you’re smaller than when I last saw you. You were 6 ‘ 8 “ and 300 pounds last time,” Ogletree said.
Crowley, meanwhile, initially did not want to attend the White House session because he felt he would be the odd man out, given the friendship between Obama and Gates. He changed his mind when told he could bring family and friends along, Ogletree said.
Ogletree said his book, “Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Race, Class and Crime in America,” was not about the Gates’ arrest but about the “broader problems of minorities being racially profiled.” Gates did not participate in the preparation of the book, he said.
Ogletree also said citizens would have benefited from having the charge processed through the criminal justice system.
Ogletree also said Dr. (Martin Luther) King (Jr.) “wouldn’t have wanted the charges dismissed.”
“If Gates went to trial (he) would have been acquitted,” he said.

Cambridge PD: Gates arrest ‘avoidable’

Maggie Mulvihill — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:04:45 +0000

By Maggie Mulvihill, Sarah Moffit and Carroll Cole

Nearly a year after Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct at his Cambridge home, a special panel of law enforcement experts and academics released a 60-page report today stating the arrest was avoidable.
“This incident could have been resolved quickly and peaceably,” said Chuck Wexler, Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum and a member of the 12-member Cambridge Review Committee.
President Barack Obama, a Gates’ friend, said last year the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates.
The criminal charge was dropped by the Middlesex District Attorney’s office within days of the incident.
The review committee was formed by Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas following the July 16, 2009 arrest of Gates, a prominent black professor. Gates claimed the white sergeant, James Crowley, who arrested him did so because he was black. At the time, Crowley was responding to a 911 call about two men possibly breaking into the house.
The committee’s report also backs up findings released earlier this month by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting demonstrating the Cambridge Police have had no pattern of racial bias with disorderly conduct arrests within the past five years.
Wexler said while race did factor into the Gates arrest, issues such as class and police authority also came into play during the encounter between Crowley and Gates.
Gates has declined requests to be interviewed by NECIR. His attorney, Harvard Law Professor Charles J. Ogletree, is currently promoting a book entitled: “The Presumption of Guilt: The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Race, Class, and Crime in America.” In the book, Ogletree compares the Gates arrest to the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, which led to race riots. He has acknowledged he never reviewed arrest data from Cambridge police nor did he interview Cambridge Police officials or Crowley before writing his book.

No Expulsions for Sexual Assaults at BU, Records Show

NECIR-BU — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:54:31 +0000

Read the story in The Daily Free Press.

Investigative News Network Inaugural Report

Maggie Mulvihill — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:48:54 +0000

Last week marked the first of what we hope will be many future collaborations with other investigative reporting centers forming around the country. NECIR was a founding member last summer of the Investigative News Network, a coalition of a growing number of non-profit watchdog journalism groups. The campus sexual assault project, led by the Center for Public Integrity, was the first to be tackled by INN members. Take a look at the companion stories that were published by our investigative reporting colleagues.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/related_stories/

Super Bowl Blitz

Maggie Mulvihill — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:23:14 +0000

New Englanders! Help us follow the money “Super Bowl” style:

Super Bowl Sunday is a just week away. Which New England politicians are getting coveted tickets as a perk of holding office? Help us track that information by lending a hand to our journalistic colleagues at ProPublica with their online SuperBowl project. They are carefully tracking who is going to the game and how they got their tickets. We have Massachusetts covered but we need help with the other New England states. You pay the politicians’ salaries; you deserve to know who is providing them with perks.

All the information to help dig out this information is here: http://www.propublica.org/ion/reporting-network/item/super-bowl-blitz-which-congressmen-are-getting-super-bowl-perks-126.

If you can help out here are a few simple suggestions:

1. Call your local politicians, including members of Congress, and ask the following two questions: Did the lawmaker go to the Super Bowl last year and is he or she planning to go this year. If yes, who provided the tickets? Again, our reporters have Massachusetts covered. Please help us with Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

2. Get the name of the person you spoke with, including the correct spelling. Receptionists are not going to know the answer to this question. You make need to talk to the lawmaker’s scheduler or even the chief-of-staff. If you encounter obstacles, note that information down. You are a constituent and are entitled to this information.

3. Email New England Center for Investigative Reporting Associate Director Maggie Mulvihill at mmulvih@bu.edu with the name of the person you spoke with, the date and time you spoke with them and what information you obtained. We’ll be creating an online chart of who is going and you’ll get credit in that chart, which we’ll be sharing with ProPublica.

“>

Welcoming the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting

Joe Bergantino — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:07:54 +0000

It’s a great day for the citizens of our region. Today, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University has a new partner, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting. For several months, we have been working with John Christie, the recently-retired publisher of the Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel, to help him establish a center similar to ours. As John notes on his website’s homepage: http://pinetreewatchdog.org,: “In recent years, most newspaper and broadcast news outlets in Maine have reduced newsroom staffs through layoffs, early retirements and attrition. One of the ?rst victims is in-depth journalism — stories which often take one or more reporters “off the street” for weeks or even months. Serious coverage of the electoral and legislative process has also suffered. In Maine, statehouse coverage has declined from about 20 year-round reporters in 1989 to 10 in 1999 to the current ?ve.”

Unfortunately, those words can be written about every New England state. While the numbers vary, the main point is the same. The future of serious, in-depth investigative reporting in New England is in jeopardy. That’s why we launched NECIR-BU a year ago this week and that’s why we’re working with reporters in the other five New England states to support efforts to create nonprofit investigative reporting centers. We’re part of a movement to ensure the survival of watchdog journalism. It’s no exaggeration to say that without watchdog reporting democracy is at risk. The beneficiaries of this movement are the citizens of New England, who deserve to have reporters working on their behalf to hold the powerful accountable.

The Right to Know

Maggie Mulvihill — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:15:52 +0000

One of the most troubling consequences of the cutbacks in local political journalism means our elected officials get a pass when it comes to public scrutiny. But a new transparency project being unveiled next month by the smart minds at Commonwealth Magazine should help to counter that trend. “Full Disclosure” has already gotten off the ground with an innovative database of 300 ethics disclosure forms that local officials in Massachusetts must file with the State Ethics Commission. They have for years existed electronically but instead the commission required you to appear at the office, fill out a request, pay $1 for a copy and wait for the official to be notified someone is seeking their disclosure information. Then you can have the paper copies. It has been a cumbersome and outdated system that the Commonwealth team, led by longtime investigative reporter Jack Sullivan, has thankfully put out of business.

The Statements of Financial Interest are available at Commonwealth’s Magazine’s website for the more than 300 officials, including all members of the Legislature, the constitutional officers, the governor’s cabinet, selected state policymakers, and elected and appointed county officials. They detail an official’s outside income, real estate, and business holdings. Commonwealth has also posted per-diem travel, meals and lodging stipends paid to state lawmakers year round here in an Excel spreadsheet ; Both databases contain important information for citizens to have as they make voting decisions and great detail for journalists working political stories.

The “Full Disclosure” project promises to be a real public service – one the traditional news organizations in the area have not yet provided. That’s why we are adding their inaugural databases to our list of essential reporting tools. As it expands with new tools we’ll update you. Meanwhile, check out more information about the project at Commonwealth’s website: http://www.massinc.org/index.php?id=749&pub_id=2498&bypass=1

What I’ve Learned on the Stimulus Beat: A Student Perspective

Sarah Favot — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:19:35 +0000

This was our assignment: find out everything you can about 21 road construction firms in Massachusetts that are getting millions in federal stimulus dollars. The reporting required a complete scrub or background check that introduced me to several government databases, websites and documents I had never worked with before. Checking the OSHA website for workplace safety violations, the EPA’s database for environmental violations and “PACER” (a federal court system website) for federal lawsuits was a valuable learning experience. Over the past two months, I’ve had the opportunity to use those databases for other research I’ve conducted either for NECIR or my classes. It’s important for every reporter, whether a rookie or veteran, to know how to work with these information tools.
Assisting with the reporting for the stimulus story also has taught me the importance of triple-checking facts and being absolutely positive that every piece of information in a story is correct. I have personally reviewed many of the numbers in our report several times. Accuracy is always key and when you’re working on a story with so many numbers and data, ensuring accuracy is a painstaking process.
Being a part of the team that reported this important story also has taught me what it really means to be fair. When you’re reporting on several different companies, each one must be contacted and given a chance to respond. We made sure that every firm had the opportunity to speak to us regarding their past history of trouble. However, not many companies did so, which I believe is a shame. I wish that people and businesses would realize that journalists are just trying to uncover the truth.

Sarah Favot is a student at Boston University’s College of Communication.

BATTLING COURT SECRECY AROUND NEW ENGLAND

Maggie Mulvihill — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:10:19 +0000

Recently we told you about how to obtain a court document that has been “impounded” – or temporarily sealed from public view – in Massachusetts. The issue arose when a court clerk denied one of our students access to a court record without explanation. In Massachusetts, when a court record is sealed in state court, the judge must issue a written order specifying why the record is being sealed and for how long. Here is the link to the Uniform Rules of Impoundment. To obtain an impoundment order in Massachusetts: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rules/tc/impoundment.html

But it turns out getting access to impounded records in other New England states is not as clear. There are no written rules in Maine, Vermont or Rhode Island guaranteeing the public access to a judge’s reasons for impounding court records.

“I have never seen an order that would require that the reason be made public,” said John Barden, director of the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library. Barden said documents may be sealed indefinitely if the court deems it appropriate. Barden said the public can make a motion in court to examine the records in accordance the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (See Rule 79(b)(2) at http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_forms_fees/rules/MRCivPONLY9-09.pdf).

Similarly, Vermont has no statute or rule akin to the Massachusetts rule. “To my knowledge we do not have that. A record that is sealed or expunged or whatever other method that conceals it is really totally concealing it,” said Renny Perry, Director of Trial Court Operations in Vermont.

In Rhode Island, Colleen McConaghy Hanna, the Deputy Law Librarian of the Rhode Island State Law Library, found no state rule or statute either guaranteeing the public a right to know why a court record was sealed.

Fortunately not all New England states make the public work as hard to find out how to gain access to impounded court records. For journalists and the public in New Hampshire and Connecticut, the relevant rules that require public access to the reasons a court record is sealed can be found at:

-Rules of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire:
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-12.htm

-Connecticut Practice Book: http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/PB1.pdf
See Chapter 7-4B, Chapter 11-20A(d), Chapter 25-59A, Chapter 42-49A

THE RIGHT TO KNOW

Maggie Mulvihill — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:57:17 +0000

You – the Massachusetts taxpayer – cannot know all the disciplinary actions your banking regulators take against brokers and lenders. They are secret. Hundreds of them over the past few years.

That’s what NECIR-BU and its media partners reported Monday in our multi-media stories about Massachusetts banking regulators. Our investigation shows Massachusetts ranks last among New England states when it comes to taking public punitive action against brokers and lenders during the current housing crisis.

The Division of Banks claims that having the ability to privately sanction a broker or lender who isn’t following the law actually makesthe process work better for the public. It is less “adversarial” and the licensed entity might be more willing to modify its behavior if it isn’t going to be publicly named, according to the Division’s Chief Operating Officer David J. Cotney.

But Massachusetts is the only state in New England which has such a two-tiered system – public sanctions and “secret” – or as the division calls them – “informal” sanctions.

Not only are the actual steps taken by regulators to encourage the broker and lender to straighten up secret, but even the names of those licensees are not made public, even if they are repeat offenders.

This is true despite the fact that taxpayers fund the probes resulting in the “informal” actions. The entire agency – which just got a legislative budget increase to do more enforcement – costs taxpayers about $12 million each year.

If it is so effective and is good public policy, as Massachusetts regulators claim, to keep informal actions secret, then why aren’t our neighboring regulators following suit?

Especially now as banking regulators acknowledge bad practices by brokers and lenders contributed to the current foreclosure crisis, it seems it’s time to lift the veil of secrecy. We have the right to know – really a responsibility as taxpayers footing the massive mortgage crisis bill – to know what brokers and lenders were cited for – and why it isn’t public.