Governor signs anti-sunshine bill into law

Discouragingly, Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law Senate Bill 647 that hinders oversight and accountability of police officers in the state.

It was just one of the many bills she signed Friday, and I, and every news agency, was hoping she would see the harm that would come with signing this foul shield law and veto it. The bill shields police statements made in internal investigations from ever being made public. This law will keep the public from knowing what officers being investigated have said and could possibly be used to cover up police wrongdoing, and it will be just another loophole the government can hide behind to deny the public information.

With the passage of this law, a cashier at Wal-Mart is more accountable than a government agent who has the power to legal kill you and take your freedom away.

The Lansing State Journal said it best when it said “Americans have the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it doesn't apply to their jobs. If an employer suspects that there is theft in the company, it has the right to summon its workers and investigate. Employees refusing to cooperate can be dismissed. They have no special right to refuse questions about wrongdoing. Why are police officers different?”

Good question. Lets just hope there is never any wrongdoing by any police officer or agency in Michigan, or other government agencies don’t decide they need a similar law to shield them from any possible embarrassing activity from ever reaching the public.

New law shields police from accountability

In what can only be described as a collective case of sticking their heads in the sand, the state House of Representatives unanimously approved Senate Bill 647 that shields police statements made in internal investigations from ever being made public. The vote was 106-0 on the last day of the session before all bills die and have to be reintroduced when the new members take office after Jan 1. Just a few more hours and this foul-smelling bill would have died again like it should have this time around.

This bill will keep the public from knowing what officers being investigated have said and could possibly be used to cover up police wrongdoing. Groups like the Michigan Press Association and other watchdog groups dedicated to bringing information to the public were against this bill. It makes you wonder who the legislature is listing to.

Any journalist or citizen who has tried to get less than flattering information from a law enforcement agency and been stonewalled by them knows there are few options for obtaining that information. Now the best, and perhaps the only, avenue available was just shut down.

It’s ironic that the former Detroit Police officer, Larry Nevers, who bashed in the head of Malice Green is in Livingston County today signing his new book. Under SB 647, the chances are pretty good this case may never have made the light of day. It seems the only time we ever hear about cases of police brutality are when they just happen to be caught on videotape. Even when they are captured by chance, police departments almost always say the force was justified. The odds are pretty good a few more incidents occur that are not caught on tape. This law will make sure we will never hear about the ones that are not caught by amateur cameraman or surveillance camera and ran non-stop on the six-o’clock news.

That’s just incidents of violence that are being shielded. What about bribery, corruption or extortion by police officers? This is not really about being anti-police. It’s about openness and transparency in government. I’m sure cases of police misconduct are rare, and 99.9 percent of police officers are honest, hard working and dedicated. But what about that .1 percent who may be dishonest and violent?

Police officers have been entrusted with some of the most powerful tools known to man; the ability to shoot and kill someone and the ability to take away their freedom. But a clerk at the Secretary of State’s office now has more accountability. Americans have the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it doesn't apply to their jobs. If an employer suspects that there is theft in the company, it has the right to summon its workers and investigate. Employees refusing to cooperate can be dismissed. They have no special right to refuse questions about wrongdoing. Why are police officers different?

Let’s hope the Governor believes in open and transparent government, and she strikes a blow against secret government behind closed doors and vetoes this bill.

Senate strikes a blow for secrecy in government and less accountability with SB 647

Last week the Michigan Senate struck a blow for secrecy, less accountability and keeping information from the public with passage of Senate Bill 647 that shields police statements made in internal investigations from being made public.

The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 30-7, and it could be voted on by the House in the last three session days this week before the new members are seated next year. Our Senator, Valde Garcia, voted for covering up possible police corruption. This bill is simply bad policy, and it cuts against the trend of openness and transparency in government.

According to a recent editorial in the Lansing State Journal, Americans have the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it doesn't apply to their jobs. If an employer suspects that there is theft in the company, it has the right to summon its workers and investigate. Employees refusing to cooperate can be dismissed. They have no special right to refuse questions about wrongdoing. Why are police officers different?

They have some very powerful tools ordinary citizens don’t have, such as taking away someone’s freedom and shooting them, but this bill gives them less accountability.

The Michigan Press Association, the LSJ and the Livingston County Daily Press and Argus are just a few of the news organizations that have come out against this assault on sunshine laws and accountability.

Newspapers have editorialized against the bill sponsored by Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond. They say it will keep the public from knowing what officers being investigated have said and could possibly be used to cover up police wrongdoing. They are correct.

Here’s a scenario provided by the MPA, “Here is an analogy about how the bill would effect everyday citizens: Say you are driving along and a police car shoots out of a driveway and clips the back of your car. The officer, who has a history of traffic accidents and fears the consequence of another, gives you a ticket for reckless driving. You're steamed, and file a complaint with the department which conducts an investigation and decides to do nothing. Under current law, you can find out exactly what the officer said. But with the passage of SB 647, you lose this right.
Was the testimony truthful? You'll never know.”

Any journalist who has tried to get information from a police agency knows that if they don’t want you to have information you simply won’t get it, and this gives them another tool to legally do it. We have given police officers a huge public trust, and 99 percent of them are hardworking, honest men and women. But this bill protects the 1 percent minority who may be bad apples from public scrutiny.

This bill needs to die on the House floor next week, and if it makes it to a vote, ask your Representative to cast a vote for transparency, openness in government and accountability and vote no on SB 647.

LSJ editorial supports Sunshine Laws and transparency in government

Good job by The Lansing State Journal. The newspaper came out in favor of Sunshine Laws and transparency in government with its editorial against Senate Bill 647. The bill is expected to be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the lame duck session.

The bill states its intent clearly and chillingly: "To restrict the use and disclosure of certain statements made by law enforcement officers."
Here is how this cover-up legislation would work: A police chief suspects that an officer uses excessive force while making arrests or harasses motorists during traffic stops. He questions the officer, whose statements support the chief's belief. Incredibly, what SB 647 seeks is a seal of secrecy of testimony by police officers making it a confidential communication not open to public inspection without the officer's consent.
The motorist who files a harassment complaint or victim of a beating could not learn that the police officer acknowledged these acts. In fact, so sweeping is this measure that if the bad cop sought a job with a different police department, his acknowledgements of beatings and harassment couldn't be shared with the new employer. That is bad policy that weakens Michigan's belief that open government is good government.

The Michigan Press Association has come out against it, and every newspaper in the state should too. Hopefully, every citizen will too. Police officers not only should be held to the same standard as ordinary citizens, but maybe an even higher standard should be in place. Every citizen who supports openness in government should oppose this bill. The argument in support of the bill just does not make sense.

Supporters of the bill say that unlike private citizens who have the right to remain silent when charged with a criminal matter, police officers must testify when ordered to do so by their department. This defense of SB 647 is purposely misleading. Americans have the constitutional right against self-incrimination. But it doesn't apply to their jobs. If an employer suspects that there is theft in the company, it has the right to summon its workers and investigate. Employees refusing to cooperate can be dismissed. They have no special right to refuse questions about wrongdoing. Why are police officers different?