Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Watching the watchdogs

Posted in:

Illinois

* From Bob Feder’s website on June 29th…

Two top officials of the Better Government Association resigned this week in a shakeup at the Chicago-based nonprofit investigative news organization and civic watchdog group.

Robert Reed stepped down as director of programming, and Robert Herguth stepped down as director of investigations. Both veteran Chicago journalists joined the BGA in 2010 and oversaw numerous award-winning investigations into corruption, fraud and waste.

Their resignations were prompted by changes in the organization’s structure and revisions in its investigative strategy under Andy Shaw, president and CEO of the BGA.

“Reed and Herguth are outstanding journalists who contributed so much to the BGA’s watchdog work over the past six years,” Shaw said in a statement. “I wish them the best in their future endeavors.”

* Feder on August 15th…

Investigators, reporters and other staff members of Chicago’s Better Government Association voted unanimously last week to seek representation by the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. The unionizing move could be seen as a challenge to Andy Shaw, who has headed the nonprofit investigative news organization and civic watchdog group since 2009. It comes just weeks after the resignations of Robert Reed as director of programming and Robert Herguth as director of investigations. Their departures reportedly were prompted by changes in the organization’s structure and revisions in its investigative strategy

* Michael Miner digs a bit deeper…

Curiously, a leader of the union campaign is Brett Chase, acting director of investigations, who, if he were appointed permanently to that post, would be management. Chase told me Shaw has done a “fabulous job of fund-raising,” while Reed and Herguth “did a fabulous job of investigating.” But with those two gone, and with Shaw indicating he’d like to play a bigger role in the BGA’s investigative work, “I think there’s a conflict,” said Chase. It’s a church-state issue, he explained: ideally, the people who raise the money—that is, Shaw and the board members who open their wallets to him—shouldn’t be speaking to, much less influencing, the people who choose and run the BGA’s investigations.

“Andy did say he thought donors should be heard,” said Chase. “And now he wants to have more say in the operation, and we want to say we believe in the mission, not the personalities.” Shaw’s energy and expansive personality led the BGA back from the brink of death when he took over in 2009 after a career in TV news. But Reed and Herguth led the mission. [Emphasis added.]

Reed and Herguth haven’t commented, likely because of a non-disclosure agreement.

Andy has done a great job of fundraising and generating publicity. I’m the one, after all, who came up with the idea of hiring him.

And as somebody who runs a one-person shop, I know first hand that it’s a constant battle to make sure that advertising and subscriptions don’t influence content. Subscriptions are actually pretty easy. I have subscribers on pretty much every conceivable side of every issue, so I just write what I want and that’s that. Advertisers, however, sometimes think they deserve special treatment, so I try to disavow them of that notion right up front and write what I want. But just this week somebody sent me a pitch e-mail about a story along with a declaration that her group intended to buy a blog ad. I informed her that I don’t do business that way. I don’t think she was trying to be venal, and her group isn’t some massive entity that controls lots of Statehouse votes or anything, but it did make me uncomfortable.

Anyway, let’s hope they get this resolved.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 10:50 am

Comments

This reads like a variant of the discussion on Proft’s fake newspapers. “Controlled ” journalism becomes an echo chamber for its supporters but loses the ability to influence non-believers.

The BGA has its credibility at risk. Thanks Rich for covering the story.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:03 am
Under Shaw they’ve already pushed the edge. While not at IPI status, I’m taking BGA stuff with a grain of salt.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:11 am
Oswego Willy thinks Andy Shaw and Brett Chase are making a mistake by so overtly making it about the ROI for Donors and forgetting what the mission use to be for the BGA.

Oswego Willy has to wonder, if Andy Shaw decides to insert himself in the process, what is the process points to an end Andy Shaw doesn’t want? Oswego Willy worries maybe that Andy Shaw has put whatever results Andy Shaw finds becomes tainted by this new direction, good or bad work being done by Andy Shaw.

Oswego Willy would like to see a continued firewall so Andy Shaw continues to have the BGA beyond reproach. Otherwise, this is just another version of the IPI(?)

As an aside…

SAG does good work for their members.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:11 am
Seems like they are getting dangerously close to “buy an investigation of your choice.”

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:32 am
A “Better Journalism Association” might be as tough a haul.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:34 am
This thread makes Andy’s job easier. He needs only hand copies of it to prospective donors to explain why they can’t buy an investigation.

Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 11:55 am
Now hang on a minute. As a former board chair who led the search that hired Andy and as someone who didn’t always see eye to eye with him, I need to come to his defense on this.

In my experience, no member of the board ever wanted or tried to “buy an investigation of your choice.” To the extent the board got involved with investigations, it was in two ways. 1 - Mission - focusing the organization on big picture issues - problems that could effect real change. And 2 - Quality Control. The board had extensive investigative experience including several former AUSA’s and other prosecutors who were able to offer expertise. That’s what governing boards are supposed to do.

But let’s be clear about something. While the BGA uses investigative journalism to further its mission, it is not a newspaper. It’s an organization dedicated to a mission - shining a light on the problems in government. I’m not sure everyone has always understood the distinction.

Comment by Dave Lundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:27 pm
BTW, I’m not on the BGA board and haven’t been for about three years so I don’t know what’s going on internally nor do I know what led to this rather surprising vote. I just thought it was worth sharing my unique perspective on this situation.

Comment by Dave Lundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:29 pm
Under Shaw’s leadership the BGA is less interested in better government, and much more interested in making it look like they’re fighting for better government.

Comment by Not It Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:34 pm
===It’s an organization dedicated to a mission - shining a light on the problems in government.===

- Dave Lundy -

With respect,

===“Andy did say he thought donors should be heard,” said (Brett) Chase. “And now he wants to have more say in the operation, and we want to say we believe in the mission, not the personalities.”===

What does it mean, “should be heard”? Can it be argued that being heard is donors dictating where to investigate, and whom?

Is that now the mission? Donors dictate the investigations?

Chase, again…

===“I think there’s a conflict,” said Chase. It’s a church-state issue, he explained: ideally, the people who raise the money—that is, Shaw and the board members who open their wallets to him—shouldn’t be speaking to, much less influencing, the people who choose and run the BGA’s investigations.===

The IPI conparisons, along with a perception that donors and their money want more influence, openly, and donors wants more of a say, where is the independence?

With respect.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:37 pm
===I just thought it was worth sharing my unique perspective on this situation.===

Thank you. It does shine a light, and my question to you, I hope, you don’t take as “hostile” but hope you take it as intended, a hope you can clarify, even being removed as you are from the inside.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:40 pm
Dave,

Thanks for your perspective. I appreciate that you’re not on the board now. Things may have changed. You say the vote to unionize was surprising, but that may be an indicator of changing circumstances at BGA. Willy’s questions are good ones, and need to be answered. Now, BGA and IPI are similar only in that they are 3 letter acronyms. Let’s hope that’s the only similarity going forward.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:43 pm
Willy,

That’s a fair question. From my perspective (and I assume from the current board’s perspective) heard is about mission and focus. When we did our strategic planning session more than five years ago, we had a lot of talk about how we wanted to not just make noise but make change. Everyone is free to debate whether that happened, but that was the intent. It was supposed to not just be about making noise but also making positive change.

Again, that’s the distinction between a newspaper and a mission-driven organization and it’s totally appropriate for a governing board to play that role.

Comment by Dave Lundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:44 pm
And no, I don’t take it as hostile at all. And to be crystal clear, I’m an ex-board member so I’m certainly not taking a position on everything that has happened in the last several years.

Comment by Dave Lundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 12:47 pm
- Dave Lundy -

First, thanks for taking time to respond, and also taking my comment as it was intended. Appreciate both.

You responded…

===Again, that’s the distinction between a newspaper and a mission-driven organization and it’s totally appropriate for a governing board to play that role.===

… and I agree, there’s a difference, it’s important to note it.

I guess my question is, and as a former board member I appreciate you looking at this through that prism, the overt message now being advocated by the BGA is that donors wavy to be heard, and donors want a say in direction.

Is the goal now not for “better government”, but for investigations driven by agenda of donors that may target things that they want, and not driven by the want for better government?

Who is watching the watchdogs?

“We’ll look at this, but as a donor, ‘X’ is my friend, let’s look elsewhere”

It leaves a perception of cherry picking brought on by the responses above and who is driving the bus and what is driving the BGA and their investigations.

Weird way to roll this out… Clouding its own mission and own perceived unbiased ways.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 1:08 pm
Back when I was acting ED, we had one investigator, a staff of three and a budget of $350,000. We punched above our weight. BGA now has 10x the budget and a very large investigative staff. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that the board wants to see more impact and less small ball stuff.

Again, totally appropriate for a governing board.

Comment by Dave Lundy Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 1:28 pm
Rich. I am proud of you. Stay strong in your beliefs and you will continue to be a great journalist. There are not many ‘news’ organizations that can say that.

Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 2:14 pm
It would be helpful if BGA would release a list of its donors. That might shed a little light. But alas, the BGA is all about transparency for others, but won’t shine the light on itself.

Comment by argh Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Speaking from just one experience where BGA did an article on a local government I had extensive knowledge about, it was a total hatchet job. The facts were completely misrepresented. The article came out in the heart of the election season. It was not hard to connect the dots. I have zero respect for BGA.

Comment by onlooker Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 2:58 pm
For the most part, BGA stories are prepackaged with heroes and villains and handed to them by not disinterested parties with an agenda. The BGA is verging on being exactly like Voltaire’s definition of the Holy Roman Empire…neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It’s become a means for Andy Shaw to make a salary he doesn’t deserve, to protect or attack people in government favored or despised by his PR flack buddies, and is not an association but a group of deep pocketed donors who want to posture themselves as good government types as long as their will is done and their friends are protected. When was the last time the BGA actually broke a story on corruption or government malfeasance? That they ally themselves with Fox News to tell a story is all the story you need to evaluate when assessing the Andy Shaw version of ‘better government.’ The wrong people resigned.

Comment by Horst Cabal Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:05 pm
BGA is a hired gossip rag for hire.Shaw has and always will be a smarmy wimp.

Comment by DOJ Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 3:11 pm
Lundy is and was in dreamland. HandoutAndy is no Terry Brunner. That should say it all. Check back after the first time Dan Cronin gets some attention

Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 4:01 pm
In the good old Terry Brunner/Mike Lyons days, one served as the head of the whole organization and the other as director of investigations, but Terry was certainly still involved in investigative planning and other related items. I don’t recall some type of ethical wall that existed.

Comment by Niles Township Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 5:55 pm
Andy Shaw made the BGA about Andy Shaw. Lazy investigations devoid of the context to actually inform readers has become the hallmark. I’m yawning just thinking about the next expose’ on how many people earn over $100,000 annually at a given public agency.
The earlier post pointing out BGA’s hypocrisy in their own lack of transparency is spot on.

Comment by Father Ted Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 5:55 pm
I believe the donors have already been “heard,” even if inadvertently. While BGA doesn’t publish all of their donors, they do put their major sponsors on-line in advance of major fund-raising events. If you did a match of those sponsors with contributors to Rahm Emanuel, there would be a large number who give big dollars to both. Then search BGA’s website for major investigations into Rahm or Forrest Claypool. Then do the math.

Comment by Michael Westen Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 6:00 pm
Perhaps the Secret Six should investigate the BGA and vice versa. BTW if the BGA doesn’t want to be perceived as journalists maybe don’t hire ex-reporters and engage in “joint investigations” with the Sun Times?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 23, 16 @ 7:17 pm
Andy is way too close to Rahm. He backed him for mayor. His daughter was clouted into a magnet by the dems. Shares daughter got a White House job from Rahm. He write nice articles about Rahms donors c3 and how great lolla is . He is not in any way shape or form independent.

Comment by Southloop Wednesday, Aug 24, 16 @ 9:18 am