The War on Media

You may not like the media – hey, there are some news organizations in this town I think are worthless, too – but you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face if you don’t like Arizona’s public records laws.

They’re real simple, just like the open-meetings laws that are their siblings: They are meant to keep all government actions open, honest and straightforward. If government is allowed to do its business in secret, or to hide records or keep information away from the public, then it’s probably doing something nasty.

So the public records and open meetings laws aren’t there just for snoops like me or anyone else with a press credential. They exist for you, the Arizona taxpayer and citizen. And since you’re probably busy making a living or raising a family or playing golf – whatever – then it’s snoops like me who keep an eye on government for you.

Here’s an inside secret of journalism: You tell me I can’t get answers, and I’m pretty sure something is amiss. You tell me I can’t see a public record, and I’m pretty certain you have something awful to hide.

Which is why Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s war on the media is so transparent. We can see right through it.

I’m not talking about his enforcement policies on this or that; I’m talking about his obstinate, childish and illegal attempts to stop the media from holding him accountable. And here’s the kick in the head: He’s using public money to stop the public from seeing records the law says it has every right to inspect. He’s keeping you in the dark by wasting thousands of your tax dollars on absurd stands against the media.

And it’s gotten so bad he even endangered children in the West Valley, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

On page 156 of this issue is a detailed account of Arpaio’s fight with the controversial New Times, a free weekly newspaper that many dismiss as a “rag.” I was an editor there almost 20 years ago and have since watched the paper with interest. While it pulls stunts I think are childish and undermine its credibility, it also consistently has garnered tons of journalism awards and has done some outstanding reporting on a variety of subjects. Sheriff Joe is one of them.

But you’d be wrong to think Sheriff Joe’s war on the media is a war against the New Times. No, he’s showing himself to be an equal-opportunity-meanie where the media is concerned. Now swimming in the same stewpot are news organizations such as KPNX-TV Channel 12, the Tucson Citizen, the West Valley View and almost the entire Spanish-speaking media. Even The Arizona Republic has editorialized about the dismal state of affairs in a piece titled, “Arpaio’s Petty Stonewalling.”

The editorial began: “The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has been treating the state Public Records law like a defiant kid treats a list of household chores. Ignoring it. Dawdling over it. Turning it into a petty fight. Message to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his staff: Oh grow up!”

The editorial page’s scolding is all the more remarkable since The Republic’s editorial editor, Phil Boas, is Joe Arpaio’s son-in-law, which must make Sunday dinner at the in-laws a pretty interesting experience. (He’s also one of the journalists in town I respect.)

Other news groups that have endured the sheriff’s pettiness have pursued another route: They’ve taken the sheriff to court to force him to follow the law. In virtually every challenge, the press has won and the sheriff has lost.

Consider the following:

The West Valley View fight, which cost taxpayers at least $75,000, has been called “the most absurd public records case in Arizona history” by Dan Barr, the First Amendment attorney who won the case. This protracted fight was over the sheriff department’s refusal to send press releases to the View, a weekly newspaper that covers Avondale, Goodyear and Litchfield Park.

“I’ve never heard anyone fighting public records [requests] over press releases,” Barr says. “The only reason you create the document is to give it to the press.”

The newspaper sued, and Sheriff Joe lost in Maricopa County Superior Court, which called him “petty.” He then lost in the state Court of Appeals, whose judges said he was acting in “bad faith.” The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Arpaio’s appeal request.

In February, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the New Times after the weekly paper showed the sheriff’s office had retaliated against reporter John Dougherty by denying him records he had requested for 143 days, even though it had already given the same information to a television station.

The Tucson Citizen won its suit in February to get records the sheriff didn’t want to give up, which cost taxpayers more than $25,000 in legal fees.

Like New Times, Channel 12 is now in the doghouse with Arpaio and is being forced to review public records at a private law firm rather than in secure government offices where public records are normally stored.

Imagine this: Somebody has to schlep the records from county buildings to a private law firm (which is being paid for by taxpayers) that will then baby-sit journalists who want to see the documents. Then somebody (read: a sheriff’s deputy) has to take the documents back again. If we have deputies free to do such ridiculous things, we have too many deputies.

The fight with Channel 12 doesn’t even involve a broadcast story, just an investigation. Sheriff spokesman Captain Paul Chagolla claims Channel 12 reporter Joe Dana “smeared him” by asking questions about a DUI-related traffic accident in Glendale. The victim, a Peoria firefighter, told Dana that Chagolla hit him, but further investigation showed it was another person.

Channel 12 never aired a story on this issue, but when Chagolla found out Dana was just asking questions, he fired off angry e-mails to KPNX-TV, telling the station it would now have to go to attorney Michele Iafrate’s office for any public records requests. So now when the media asks a question, the sheriff’s office not only refuses to answer, it retaliates.

Spanish-speaking radio, newspaper and television stations that have been critical of Arpaio have complained they either get no information or spotty information from the sheriff’s office.

There’s more, but you get the idea. What you don’t know is the danger involved. The West Valley View case makes the point.

In February 2005, the View blasted Arpaio in an editorial for demanding fingerprints from motorists in traffic stops. That summer, View photographer Owen Martin wrote an opinion piece on the “heavy-handed” way deputies treated the media at crime scenes, comparing Arpaio to Hitler and his deputies to Nazis. These incidents apparently led to Arpaio’s ban on e-mailing press releases to the paper.

Captain Chagolla told the paper it would have to ask for each press release formally through a public records request, then wait for the request to be honored, then drive 20 miles Downtown to pick up the releases. By then, the information would be out of date and worthless to a newspaper on deadline, the View noted when it sued the sheriff.

The sheriff’s office hired private attorney Dennis Wilenchik to defend it against the West Valley View.

In June 2006, a Superior Court judge ruled the sheriff was “petty” to block information to the View and said, although it didn’t have to put the paper on its e-mail list, it did have to make the press releases available to the View the same day it makes them available to everyone else. Instead of accepting the judge’s ruling, Arpaio had Wilenchik appeal the decision and continued to deny the View any news releases.

The appeal didn’t have a chance in hell – the law is very clear – so I have to guess it was either filed out of obstinacy or to give Wilenchik more billable hours at taxpayers’ expense. Whatever the reason, it was a stupid decision. And it just got worse.

A child predator hit the West Valley area on September 15, 2006 – three months after the Superior Court ruling but while Arpaio’s nonsensical appeal was pending.

Fortunately, the little girl got away from her two would-be kidnappers – one who drove the car and the other who jumped out and grabbed her as she walked home alone from Wigwam Creek Middle School.

District Superintendent Thomas Heck notified the sheriff’s office and district parents. But that’s as far as the information went. Other schools in the area didn’t know about the attack, and the sheriff’s office didn’t inform the one newspaper that covers the area – the West Valley View. The Arizona Republic apparently never reported on the attack.

A second predator attacked a few days later and, again, the little girl got away. Superintendent Heck sent a second letter to district parents, but this time he also sent a copy to the View, which is how the paper first learned what was happening. Heck then made a most startling discovery: The sheriff’s office had produced a composite sketch of the suspected predators but had not given it to the View. He went to deputies who work at one of his schools and persuaded them to give him copies of the sketch, and then he personally delivered it to the View, which published it.

“It seems to me that it’s not good policy to withhold information from a local newspaper that affects children or the community,” Heck told the media.

The View told its readers about the incident and all its ugly details in an editorial titled, “Sheriff as Dangerous as a Child Predator.” That brought more anger from the sheriff’s office through attorney Dennis Wilenchik, who threatened to sue the paper for libel. He charged the editors with “zealous hatred of the sheriff” and asked, “Have you no decency at all?” I could turn around and ask the same question of Sheriff Arpaio.

In the end, the Arizona Court of Appeals not only ruled the sheriff was breaking the public records law by denying news releases to the View, but it required Arpaio’s office – therefore, Maricopa County taxpayers – to pay the newspaper’s attorney fees, which amounted to $37,893.

We haven’t seen Sheriff Joe’s last attempt to skirt the public records law, and we haven’t seen the media’s last effort to force him to follow it. But it takes a lot of time and money to sue, and not every news organization has the wherewithal to pull that off.

Sheriff Joe doesn’t have the same worry. He’s got the public teat to finance his war on the media.