Latest news with #OpenRecordsAct
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Legal fees in city audit by Troutman Sanders cost Columbus taxpayers more than $450,000
COLUMBUS, GA. () — The Columbus city government has spent a lot of tax money to investigate claims of illegal activity and misconduct in the city's Finance Department. The legal fees paid to an Atlanta law firm to investigate the city's Finance Department cost taxpayers more than $450,000, according to information obtained by WRBL through Georgia's Open Records Act. The city has paid the money to Troutman Pepper since 2023. That is strictly funds for legal fees alone and not the cost of a forensic audit that accompanied the Troutman Pepper investigation, according to City Attorney Clifton Fay. It started in August 2023 when City Councilor JoAnne Cogle made a surprise motion at the end of a council meeting. The motion by the District 7 representative was specific, asking for a particular law firm. 'I would like to make a motion that we hire Troutman and Pepper to work alongside our internal auditor in a previously approved audit with the intention and goal of providing a detailed report of some of the concerns that have surfaced,' Cogle read. Hiring Troutman Pepper came on the heels of an internal city audit of the Finance Department. That audit suggested, without evidence, that 45 million dollars was missing from city coffers. That is a claim that has been repeated as recently as this week when Mayor Skip Henderson had to correct a citizen who regurgitated it at a public hearing Tuesday night. Troutman Pepper's detailed report found serious operational and organizational issues inside the Finance Department, but nothing rose to a criminal level.. Troutman Pepper partner Charles Peeler said when his work concluded, 'There is no evidence to support the claim that there is $45.1 million of revenue missing.' That wasn't the only investigation. The Muscogee County Sheriff's Office recently concluded a 16-month investigation that resulted in two misdemeanor arrests. Finance Director Angelica Alexander was charged with obstruction. Former Revenue Manager Yvonne Ivey was charged with two counts of simple battery. None of the charges were connnected to alleged financial misconduct. But according to one councilor, the investigations created a deeper divide between the mayor, city manager, and some city councilors. 'We brought in Troutman Pepper and Charlie Peeler to kind of protect the auditor,' District 5 Councilor Charmanine Crabb told WRBL in a May 20 interview. 'They weren't cooperating with her. They were kind of attacking her. And he was supposed to be working for council. And all of a sudden, this investigation comes into play, and he's working for Isaiah and the mayor.' In that Muscogee County Sheriff's Office investigation that Crabb referenced in an interview with WRBL last month, she called Peeler 'disloyal, lacking honor, integrity, and respect.' Peeler is a former U.S. attorney. The Troutman Pepper investigation cost taxpayers $456,221.40. Councilor Glenn Davis and Crabb contend that part of that money paid for investigative work requested by Mayor Skip Henderson and the city manager. The investigations into the Finance Department were one of the reasons given last week when the city council voted 7-3 to terminate City Manager Isaiah Hugley just seven months short of his retirement. Crabb made that motion to fire Hugley and pay him through the end of December. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Atlanta Police Foundation ordered to comply with open records requests over ‘Cop City' documents
Illustration by Eric Wilson for Votebeat A Fulton County Superior Court Judge has ordered the Atlanta Police Foundation to comply with a series of open records requests filed by a group of reporters and researchers related to the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, colloquially known as 'Cop City.' The foundation has 30 days to release 15 unredacted public records it had sought to withhold in a case closely watched by journalists and government transparency advocates alike. The foundation is a private nonprofit organization that raises funds for the Atlanta Police Department, helps with police recruitment and serves as the driving force behind the controversial 85-acre training facility that opened earlier this year after mass protests and crackdowns from the state. The plaintiffs, Atlanta Community Press Collective and Chicago-based research center Lucy Parsons Labs, had first requested records regarding the training center back in 2023. The requested records included APF board meeting agendas and minutes, budget documents, emails between foundation officials and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, and various contracts. However, they received no response from the APF, even as the foundation provided records to news outlets like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB. In a 12-page order released Friday, Judge Jane Barwick ruled that the APF's decision to withhold the records violated Georgia's open records laws, stating that 'records 'maintained or received by a … private person or entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of an agency' are subject to the Open Records Act.' As a result, 'APF was under a duty to provide records to ACPC and Lucy Parsons Labs pursuant to the Open Records Act,' the ruling reads. 'Under the authority explained in this Order, no exemptions applied.' Barwick also emphasized that public records could not be withheld on the basis of which person or group requested them. 'Let the record also be clear that the identity of the requestor does not determine whether records are characterized as public,' she wrote. However, she declined to award attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, reasoning that the police foundation did not 'knowingly and willfully' violate the Open Records Act. During a two-day bench trial in April, APF President and CEO Dave Wilkinson testified that he viewed responding to the records requests as voluntary, since he did not believe that the private nonprofit was subject to Georgia's open records laws. He also argued that releasing unredacted records could endanger the individuals named in those records by exposing them to harassment and threats from protestors. The press collective applauded the ruling, but condemned the multi-year battle it took to gain access to the records. 'While we're pleased with the result of the lawsuit, we're frustrated that it required a lawsuit to confirm what we already knew to be true: the Atlanta Police Foundation should be responsive to records requests regarding its operations for and on behalf of the City of Atlanta,' the community press collective said in a statement on the ruling. Joy Ramsingh, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the suit, also criticized the police foundation's initial refusal to provide the records. 'The fact that APF continued to fight even though the law was so clearly established against them, I think shows bad faith,' Ramsingh said. 'I think it shows a very political mindset on their part as opposed to a willingness to comply with the law.' The police foundation also applauded the ruling, saying it 'welcomes and celebrates Judge Barwick's court ruling as a clear affirmation of our role, our structure, and our ongoing commitment to public safety in Atlanta,' and that they plan to 'fully comply' with the plaintiffs' record requests. The issue of public access to government records has been an ongoing issue across the state in recent months. Last August, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that private contractors working for public entities are still subject to open records laws, and can be sent requests for public records they may possess. The ruling reversed an appeals court decision that government transparency advocates argued would shield certain public records from disclosure. The case also prompted new legislation aimed at clarifying Georgia's existing public records law. Under Senate Bill 12, which was signed into law by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp earlier this year, requests for public records that involve a private entity must now go through the local governmental agencies that contracted with those third parties. Though a last-minute amendment sought to restrict public access from records of police officers' stops, arrests and incident responses, legislators in the House ultimately reversed the changes before advancing SB 12 to the governor's desk. ACPC Final Order SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Oklahoma lawmakers overturn vetoes on dozens of measures, including mammograms, records transparency
Rep. Annie Menz, D-Norman, front, talks with Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman, and Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Oklahoma City, while awaiting votes on a veto override during the Senate session on Thursday. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma House rose for a standing ovation Thursday after overturning the governor's veto of a bill expanding access to mammograms for early breast cancer detection. Rep. Melissa Provenzano, D-Tulsa, the bill's author, said the standing ovation was 'powerful' and a reminder that people are humans before they are politicians. She was battling breast cancer for the length of the legislative session. Despite a nearly five hour delay in the Senate, the measure was one of nearly four dozen vetoes the House and Senate overturned on the penultimate day of session as they worked past midnight and into Friday morning before adjourning. Lawmakers moved to overturn the majority of Stitt's vetoes. Provenzano was met with another round of applause Thursday night when she returned to the House chamber after the Senate voted to finalize the veto override. 'I'm just reminded again, that we're humans first, politicians second,' Provenzano said. 'And I think every member and every staff member and the people in this building, if what we experienced here is going on in the state of Oklahoma, then it's time for something like this. Because everybody had a story of a sister or a mother, an aunt, a wife. And so it was just powerful.' Stitt said he vetoed the bill because while he is 'sympathetic' to those battling breast cancer, the legislation would have imposed 'new and costly' insurance mandates on private health plans and raised insurance premiums. To override a veto from the governor, two-thirds of representatives and senators must vote in favor of the measure or three-quarters if the measure contains an emergency provision. The dozens of overrides ranged from measures that aimed to increase public access to open records to missing and murdered indigenous people. Some of the measures lawmakers vetoed included: House Bill 2785 that gives the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services the ability to review the budget and finances of the state Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, which has had ongoing financial troubles. The governor said it was 'nonsensical and ineffective' to task one executive agency with micromanaging another; House Bill 2163 that gives the Attorney General's Office the power to enforce violations of the Open Records Act. Stitt said the bill would give Attorney General Gentner Drummond 'sweeping and unchecked authority' to access records from all state agencies, an 'unprecedented' power in Oklahoma. Drummond had previously urged lawmakers to override the veto; House Bill 2048 that prohibits insurers and pharmacy benefit managers from discriminatory reimbursement practices. Stitt wrote in his veto message that this was a federal issue and the Legislature should not insert itself. House Bill 1137 that removes a requirement that the Office of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons be federally funded, opening it up to state funding. Stitt said he vetoed the measure because he doesn't endorse legislation that 'singles out victims based solely on their race.' Stitt posted a video Thursday afternoon telling voters to closely watch how lawmakers vote on veto overrides. 'This is stuff I know is bad for Oklahoma, bad for taxpayers,' he said in the video. 'And you've got the Senate and House and special interest groups that are trying to override my vetoes.' Stitt said Thursday that he had vetoed 68 bills this session that would overregulate businesses and create higher taxes for Oklahomans. He said voters should pay attention to which lawmakers supported overrides of his vetoes. Rep. Scott Fetgatter, R-Okmulgee, referenced Stitt's comments while making a motion to override a veto on one of his bills, House Bill 2459, which pertains to fire safety in mobile food vehicles. 'Evidently, since the governor has called for all of us to be primaried that override his vetoes today, and his staff cant seem to read a bill correctly and they vetoed my bill, I make a motion to override the veto,' he said. Legislative proceedings stalled for nearly five hours after Senate leaders struggled to get the required number of votes necessary to override House Bill 2769. The measure contained a series of amendments to the leadership requirements and rules of the Oklahoma National Guard. The Senate passed the override just after 9 p.m. Stitt's override message said he vetoed the bill because it made major changes to the National Guard and state finances without a thorough fiscal analysis. 'While I applaud all our men and women who serve our country and our state in the National Guard, I cannot allow this bill to become law,' he wrote. '… The policies in this bill should be considered, reviewed, and debated as separate and distinct bills.' The bill makes several amendments to the qualifications necessary to serve as adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard, an officer overseeing administrative and personnel matters. The position could now be filled by someone with a rank of colonel or higher. It also grants the officer additional powers. The officer is to be compensated at the same rate of pay afforded to a major general. Several changes were also made to the Oklahoma Uniform Code of Military Justice. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Secrecy sets the pace when it comes to this Beshear's Kentucky Derby guest list
Guests at Gov. Andy Beshear's Derby eve event mingle in the courtyard of the Old Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, May 2, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Tom Loftus) FRANKFORT, Ky. — Again this year, Gov. Andy Beshear has refused to identify friends and political supporters who buy prime tickets to the Kentucky Derby made available by Churchill Downs for the governor's entourage. The governor's office responded to an Open Records Act request from the Lantern with a letter saying it has no records of who got the tickets or who was invited to Beshear's black-tie Derby eve party at the Old Governor's Mansion in Frankfort. The office referred questions about the tickets and the party to a nonprofit corporation Beshear created at the outset of his administration to act as broker for his Derby tickets and manage the party. But the nonprofit, First Saturday in May Inc., is not covered by the Kentucky Open Records Act. And as it did last year, First Saturday refused the Lantern's request to review details of its income and spending. It ignored the Lantern's questions asking how many tickets it bought this year, the cost of the tickets and to whom the tickets were sold. First Saturday did, however, release a copy of its most recent (2023-24) tax return, which it is required by law to do. The tax return reveals only basic financial information — $990,000 in income that year and $965,000 in expenses. First Saturday reported in that tax return that it is a 501(c)(4) charitable organization whose mission is 'to organize and manage events for the promotion of economic development in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.' The nonprofit released a brief statement to the Lantern which noted its role in hosting the state's 'economic development and tourism guests at the Kentucky Derby.' But the statement also acknowledged, 'Additional tickets to the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby were privately purchased from Churchill Downs by the First Saturday in May at no expense to the Commonwealth.' This is the only hint from First Saturday of the substantial payments it has received in recent years from Democratic Party groups — particularly the Democratic Governors Association, or DGA. The 2025 Kentucky Derby was run as Beshear explores a campaign for president in 2028. Beshear's national profile was enhanced in December when his fellow Democratic governors elected him vice chair of the DGA and as chair-elect for 2026. The DGA used the events of Beshear's Derby weekend — including the private formal party on Derby Eve — as a fundraiser this year. And disclosures filed by the association with the Internal Revenue Service show that it has maintained a close relationship with First Saturday in May since Beshear first became governor. The IRS calls 501(c)(4) groups 'social welfare organizations' which are permitted to participate in some political activity as long as politics isn't their primary purpose. The Democratic Governors Association did not respond to numerous phone messages and emails from the Lantern. For its part, Churchill Downs refused to answer questions from the Lantern. Last year the Lantern reported that Beshear broke from the practice of his four immediate predecessors — including his father Steve Beshear, governor from 2007-15 — by refusing to release lists of those who bought Derby tickets from the allotment set aside by Churchill Downs for the governor. Several news reports dating back to 1999 published lists released by those governors of the people who bought their tickets from a large allotment set aside by Churchill Downs for purchase at face value by the governor's guests. The practice was to release lists of actual buyers of the tickets to reporters after the Derby, when the records were no longer considered preliminary. According to those news reports, each year a small portion of those tickets were bought by state government to host official guests — job creators and tourism promoters. Most tickets were bought by political donors, lobbyists, administration officials and friends. That is apparently the case this year. The 'spending search' function on state government's 'Transparency' website shows that the state has paid First Saturday $106,291 so far this year — apparently for the cost of tickets and related expenses for the official guests. But the number of such official guests — job creators and tourism promoters from out of state — is not large. The Beshear administration has said 40 such guests were entertained at the 2024 Derby. The past news articles reported that Churchill sold as many as 553 Derby tickets to the governor's group while Democrat Paul Patton was governor in 1999, and as few as 237 in 2016 under Republican Matt Bevin. Critics quoted in those articles questioned the propriety of Churchill — an entity closely regulated by the state and a massive political donor — making so many tickets available to the governor — far more tickets than needed for the official state guests. The ability to buy a prime Derby ticket at face value is a rare opportunity. Demand exceeds supply and many Derby fans must go online to the secondary market to buy tickets at high prices set by sellers. Norman Ornstein, an authority on ethics in government and emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, told the Lantern last year that he was not so bothered by this potential conflict of interest. 'My only question now would be: Why are you not letting us know what other governors have let us know?' Ornstein said. One conclusion that can be drawn from available public records about First Saturday in May is that from its creation it has had a close relationship with the Democratic Governors Association. The DGA and its affiliated nonprofit group are required to file finance reports with the Internal Revenue Service. Those reports show that since First Saturday in May was created in 2019 through the end of 2024 the DGA has paid it $491,000. (The specific payments were: $105,000 in January 2022; $172,200 in February 2023; $37,300 in April 2023; $26,500 in March 2024. Also, a DGA affiliated non-profit named America Works USA reported that it made a $150,000 grant to First Saturday in early 2020.) The DGA is not required to disclose its receipts and spending for the first half of 2025 until July. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported in April that the DGA used Derby weekend as a fundraising opportunity. An invitation obtained by the Lexington Herald-Leader said that for a $15,000 donation ($25,000 for two people) a guest would get a ticket to the Oaks, the Derby and the Beshears' gala at the Old Governor's Mansion. The gala was not exclusively for the DGA donors and the state's economic development guests. Beshear Communications Director Crystal Staley said, 'Many different people from a variety of groups attend the gala.' The DGA's fundraiser invitation offered the opportunity for donors to not only party with Beshear, but also three other Democratic governors: The 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president Tim Walz of Minnesota, Maura Healey of Massachusetts and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. Last year a DGA spokesperson told the Lantern that the DGA has hosted events in Kentucky on Derby weekend for many years. Besides the DGA, other political groups have made payments to First Saturday. The Kentucky Democratic Party has reported to the FEC that it has paid a total of $99,370 since May of 2022 to First Saturday. And the Democratic Attorneys General Association has disclosed to the IRS that it has paid First Saturday $24,400. First Saturday in May Inc. was formed by Beshear soon after his first inauguration in December 2019. It was not a unique idea; governors going back to Paul Patton had created similar nonprofits to handle expenses of their Derby activities. Records of Kentucky's secretary of state show that in mid-February this year, the leadership of the nonprofit changed. Lindy Karns, Beshear's CPA who also has served as treasurer of his campaign committees, is no longer treasurer and contact person for First Saturday. Jack Dulworth, a Louisville businessman and longtime Beshear supporter, moved from the president's job to vice president. The new president is Jonathan Smith, who has worked closely with Beshear since Beshear's 2015 campaign for attorney general. (Officers of First Saturday receive no salaries, according to the organization's tax returns.) Smith resigned last year as deputy chief of staff in the governor's office. At the time of his resignation, the Herald-Leader reported that Smith 'is seen by many political insiders as a liaison between Beshear and others in the political world.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
ACLU of Iowa sues Reynolds over access to government records
(Photo by Getty Images) The ACLU of Iowa is suing Gov. Kim Reynolds in an effort to force the release of government records related to a decision to block The Satanic Temple of Iowa from staging an event at the Iowa State Capitol. The lawsuit was docketed in Polk County District Court on Tuesday, four days after Reynolds sought a court injunction that would block the Des Moines Register from accessing an entirely different set of records. The Register is seeking documents pertaining to allegations about the finances of Lutheran Social Services and its affiliates, but the governor's office has claimed the sought-after documents are covered by executive privilege and need not be disclosed. The ACLU case also involves a claim of executive privilege by Reynolds' office. The ACLU case stems from a June 2024 request by the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers for documents from the governor's office that are related to the State of Iowa's decision to cancel an Iowa Satanic Temple winter celebration in the rotunda of the Iowa State Capitol. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The governor's office refused to produce all of the requested documents, citing executive privilege, even though, the ACLU argues, the documents in question are an executive agency report and documents related to media preparation. Some relevant materials were turned over, but much was redacted, according to the ACLU. 'At present, this claimed 'executive privilege' has no limit unless one is self-imposed by the governor's office,' the lawsuit states. 'This would, contrary to the purposes, goals, and express language of Iowa's Open Records Act, allow the governor's office to reject the public interest in favor of free and open examination of public records solely because of the potential for inconvenience or embarrassment.' In addition to Reynolds, the lawsuit names as a defendant Steven Blankinship, general counsel for governor. The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring that Reynolds has violated the Iowa Open Records Law, an order enjoining the governor's office from committing any future violations for one year, and an injunction requiring Reynolds to turn over the requested records. The governor's office has yet to file a response to the lawsuit, and her communications staff did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. It's not the first time the ACLU and Reynolds have clashed over access to information. In 2023, the ACLU of Iowa successfully sued Reynolds' office on behalf of Iowa Capital Dispatch and other media representatives and advocates for failing to respond in a timely fashion to journalists' requests for information about the state's response to COVID-19. The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Reynolds, and her office was ordered to comply in a timely manner to public record requests from journalists. The Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, or IAF, is a public interest group based in central Iowa that focuses on secular governance, the importance of science, separation of church and state, and a transparent and responsive government. Jason Benell, IAF's president, said the organization 'contends that it is in the interest of the public, regardless of their religious, economic, ethnic, or any other background, that our government be transparent and responsive to the needs of the governed… The governor's office has repeatedly refused to respect the rights of Iowans by unjustly and flagrantly asserting executive privilege in order to avoid accountability in matters of public interest.' Thomas Story, an ACLU of Iowa staff attorney, said the lawsuit is intended to challenge the governor's claim of 'an unprecedented 'executive privilege' to defy Iowa law. For more than half a century, the Iowa Open Records Act has ensured that the work of the state happens in the open. Now, the governor's office has decided it alone gets to decide what the public sees. The Iowa Constitution does not give it this authority.' Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, said that as one of the plaintiffs in the 2023 lawsuit against Reynolds, the council is concerned that the refusal to turn over records concerning the planned Satanic Temple event at the Capitol was a 'continuation of the governor's desire to shield from public release documents that might cast her in a negative light.' Evans said the 'people of Iowa are entitled to evaluate their governor's actions. That becomes difficult when the governor tries to hide behind what should be a very narrow interpretation of executive privilege.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
