Code of Conduct for Ragone

There is fallout from last night’s I-Team report on the mayor’s press secretary, Peter Ragone.

Late today, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Aaron Peskin sponsored a resolution that would set a code of conduct for Ragone and other press officers for the city. This comes after we revealed Ragone apparently has been using phony names to post on popular blogs, including the I-Team and SFist.com, building up the mayor and blasting his critics. It was especially troubling for Peskin the lengths we’ve had to go to, to get a comment from Mayor Newsom.

Here is the resolution on the code of conduct in its entirety:

Public Information Officer Conduct Standards

Resolution establishing standards for the conduct of the City’s Public Information Officers.

WHEREAS, The first responsibility of all City employees is to earn and preserve the trust of the citizens it serves; and,

WHEREAS, Public Information Officers are the primary liaisons between the City, its citizens and the media; and,

WHEREAS, Public Information Officers serve a vital public function in our democratic system of government; and,

WHEREAS, It is critically important that Public Information are viewed by citizens and the media as honest and trustworthy brokers of information and to adhere to the highest ethical standards in doing so; and,

WHEREAS, Deception and disinformation severely damages the public trust and limits the City’s ability to serve the public; and,

WHEREAS, The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) lists as one of it’s core principles “protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society”; now, therefore, be it,

RESOLVED, It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco that its Public Information Officers and Spokespeople hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, including:

1) Advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information to the public and the press.

2) Strive to disclose accurate information, not to hide it from the public.

3) Respond in a timely and professional manner to all inquiries by the press and public.

4) Guard the public trust by disseminating all requested information and avoiding false representations in accordance with the law.

5) Adhere to the PRSA Code of Ethics.

And, be it, FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors provide this resolution as well as the PRSA code of ethics to all Public Information Officers and Department Heads, including elected Department Heads.

As you can see, the resolution refers to the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics. You can read that here.

Ragone On The Blogs

Phone lines have been blazing between the San Francisco Mayor's Office, the Board of Supervisors, the Hall of Justice and ABC 7: "What's going on with Peter Ragone? What will the I-Team have tonight?" To most of you, Ragone is just another talking head on the evening news or quoted in the newspapers -- he's the press secretary for Mayor Gavin Newsom. But, insiders at City Hall see him differently. Watch our report and make up your own mind.

At issue -- more than a dozen comments on blogs posted from Ragone's home computer in recent weeks. The story started at Sfist.com and we found comments from Ragone's computer on our site. It appears the press secretary has been using phony names to build up the mayor and blast his critics.

We're streaming an interview I did today with a professor of journalism at San Francisco State. Yumi Wilson has good perspective on this issue, having worked for the San Francisco Chronicle covering Gavin Newsom when he was a Supervisor and Willie Brown when he was Assembly Speaker. She also was surprised by an old e-mail exchange when I asked Ragone for interviews.

As always, we welcome hearing from anyone on this issue -- that's why we give you the chance to post comments here. I really look forward to hearing from "John Nelson"; I know he won't be shy about posting.

It’s Just a Question, Part II

We are going to have to approach Mayor Gavin Newsom again in the not-too-distant future, as we follow up on the beating of the Yale choir and other I-Team investigations. So, I wanted to make sure you understand the ground rules the Mayor’s Office has set up for us to get comments from Newsom.

Our last interview with the mayor got quite a response from viewers. We posted the entire exchange here. We asked about the investigation into the Yale incident, and about a published report that described Newsom as being under the influence of alcohol and acting inappropriately. We got e-mail and comments on our blog from both sides. Sierra wrote:

“Dan Noyes does great reporting. He tightens the screws where they need to be tightened. How much money has been spent on a barely existent emergency preparedness plan? How many months did the Mayor’ Office put off questions and delay submitting the appropriate annexes? The Mayor is a public servant. If he is acting inappropriately, then we have the right to answers. Go get ‘em, Dan!”

But an e-mail exchange I had with Bruce, a viewer from San Francisco, reflected some of the criticism we received for the interview. It also gave us the chance to explain the difficulty we’ve had in dealing with the Mayor’s Office and Newsom himself:

-----Original Message----- From: Bruce F____ Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:31 AM To: Noyes, Dan Subject: Very disappointed with your "performance"

I watched while you conducted a sensible and well-done interview of Mayor Newsom recently about the brawl on N.Y's Eve wherein the Yale choir member had his jaw broken. However, at the end of the interview which clearly caught the Mayor on his way to his car, you sprung on him a completely irrelevant question, irrelevant to the foregoing interview, asking about the Matier-Ross article about his drinking. What did his personal drinking habits have to do with the Yale brawl?!
It was indeed a cheap shot to get a story and was an extremely unbecoming action on your part. I have no interest in watching your news shows any further.

Bruce F____
San Francisco

-----Original Message-----
From: "Noyes, Dan"
Sent: Jan 17, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Bruce F____
Subject: RE: Very disappointed with your "performance"

Actually, Bruce, no, I didn't "catch" the mayor on the way to his car. I called his office earlier in the day and requested a brief on camera interview at City Hall, arguing that would be better than me meeting him at a public event. But, Newsom will not do one-on-one interviews with me -- or most other journalists in town, so they insist that we catch up to him after one of his public events.

We had no guidelines on the interview -- even though I tried to speak with Newsom as he walked up to the camera to thank him for his time, and to outline the topics, he ignored me until the camera rolled.

Newsom had avoided reporters for three days since the Matier and Ross story; no one had been able to ask him about it. It was my duty to ask the question. In most any other city, the mayor would have held a news conference the day the report came out to address it, and every reporter in town would have been asking similar questions.

Are you suggesting that any interview should be limited to one topic? That's not how it works. When you finally get an opportunity to question a public official, all topics are on the table and they know that.

Finally, if you look at my exact wording, it was a pretty tame question. I asked a public official to comment on a published report. I didn't ask, "Were you drunk that night?" He could have taken the chance to address it, said no comment, or offered any of several explanations he should have prepared in advance. This was, after all, three days after the report came out.

I hope you'll reconsider watching ABC 7 -- we have many important stories in the works.

Best,
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce F____
To: Noyes, Dan
Sent: Sat Jan 20 14:39:51 2007
Subject: RE: Very disappointed with your

Points well taken. I appreciate your taking the time to respond and I do apologize for my tone in that previous email. One never gets the "whole story" from sound bites or clips. In the future, I will certainly withhold judgment until I have all the facts. Thanks, Dan. I will continue watching.
Bruce F____

One other example of the difficulties we face in dealing with the Mayor’s Office: his press secretary, Peter Ragone, rarely answers his cell phone or the direct number to his desk. On a recording, he instructs the media to send him an e-mail on his Blackberry, but the address Ragone gives is not working. His staff tells us they don’t have another e-mail address for him.

It could be that Ragone is not pleased that we posted an entire e-mail exchange we had with him, over shortcomings in San Francisco’s emergency planning.

We’ll keep at it.

Don't Shoot the Messenger

I’m used to taking heat for the stories I pursue. When you try to right a wrong, expose government corruption or mismanagement, or stand up for the little guy, someone is bound to be upset. But, I have to admit the level of vitriol and personal insults I’m receiving over the Yale Choir story surprises me.

Few people can really quarrel with the facts we’ve reported, but some accuse us of ignoring the “other side”. But, we based our reports on direct witness accounts, police reports, and sources close to the investigation. We also took many steps to try and speak with the young men accused of assaulting the singers – reached some of them, their friends and family over the phone, on e-mail or on the social networking sites. They declined to comment. I visited the Aicardi family in their home the night before we broke the story, and repeatedly explained to Dr. Aicardi and her husband that we needed to hear their perspective. Before I called, their sons hadn’t told them about the incident a full week earlier; they hadn’t told their parents they spent hours speaking with SFPD investigators that very afternoon. By the time our conversation wrapped up, it became clear to the Aicardis that they needed a lawyer – they declined to be interviewed, as did their sons. I’ve checked back in with them several times since our first story aired. The attorney they’ve hired also declines to be interviewed on camera, but we’ve quoted him in our reports. Let me say here definitively – this is a standing invitation for any of the parties involved to be interviewed, or for anyone who has specific, verifiable details of what happened that night.

I’ve developed a thick skin over the years – take what shots you want. But, try to be kind to each other on this blog. Let’s not make this about personal attacks and focus on the issues.

Finally, some question why the young men from Yale and their families are being so public with their complaints. They came to me because of the I-Team's track record of investigating local government. You have to keep in mind that police apparently violated common practices and procedures. They didn’t make any arrests that night, even though they detained four young men who were identified by members of the Baker’s Dozen as assailants. They didn’t interview the detainees or the victims that night, when their memories would be freshest and statements most valuable. Police waited a week to interview the suspects, and almost two weeks to interview the Baker’s Dozen. The singers were in town for three full days after the incident, but police did not approach them. Inspectors had to catch up with them in Southern California, where they went on their concert tour. My point is there are so many unanswered questions about that night and about the investigation as it plods along. We’ll be pursuing all the angles. Stay tuned.

It's Just A Question

We had an interesting conversation with Mayor Gavin Newsom this evening about the Baker’s Dozen controversy, and we thought it was important to stream the entire interview for a number of reasons. Primarily, it was the first time that he addressed the controversy in detail. We also took the opportunity to ask Newsom about a published report in the Chronicle Monday that claimed he was under the influence of alcohol and acted inappropriately when he visited the hospital the night SFPD Officer Bryan Tuvera was shot to death. No reporter’s been able to get a response to the report from Newsom, so I asked the question. I’m providing a transcript of the entire interview. Again, you’ll see two questions about the Baker’s Dozen, and then – about 3:45 into the exchange – the drinking question.

Dan: I’m asking about the attack on the Yale students over New Year’s and, you know, it’s kind of spreading across the country; a couple other, some news outlets in other countries are picking it up. I wonder, are you concerned at all about the image of the city?

Mayor Newsom: I think there’s, I think before everyone overreacts and I think a lot of misinformation’s been out there. Uh, and uh, a lot suggestions that I don’t think are necessarily founded are being put into play. People are hiring attorneys everywhere and there’s a lot of p.r. and spin that’s been provided. So, I’m hoping everyone tempers things, we have a professional investigation, investigations don’t happen overnight and they certainly don’t happen in the media. And, I think people need to be cautious before photographs are put on the air, before investigative reports are leaked, people need to consider does that help the investigation or does it hurt it. And I think it hurts it and I think we all should just temper and move forward. This stuff just flames the fire and then creates this media attention which some people like. I don’t think it’s good for the city, to answer your question, obviously it’s not, but you know, there’s still a lot of questions I have. Why were these kids, they’re all underage, why were they in a home with a lot of liquor, how’d they get the liquor, what the heck were they doing down there, why is everyone hiring an attorney, who’s culpable, who’s not? You know, I have confidence, I have spent the last two days with the investigators, spent an hour with them today, literally an hour, going again through every detail and all these assertions in the press, and I have confidence we’re marching down the right path. They’re going to be meeting with the uh, the uh Yale kids tomorrow down in Southern California where they’re already going to be and hopefully we’ll get closer to having someone identify a witness, not just someone who’s wearing a hat that they think necessarily was uh, or identify a culprit, not just someone they think was a culprit.

Dan: Okay, I appreciate that, I’m almost finished. I wonder if you have concerns at all about the police handling of this. There’s been criticism that they should have made an arrest early on, and they haven’t talked to the guys for ten days.

Mayor Newsom: Well, they uh, they’ve been trying. We were supposed to interview them today at three o’clock, but they decided they have a new attorney, Jim Hammer, of all people, it’s interesting, a friend of mine. Used to work with my wife—ex-wife, and uh they’re going to be doing it in L.A., so they’ve been trying to arrange that for some time. That being said, uh, you got to arrest people because people have identified people and have signed affidavits saying that person did it. You’re going to find there’s a lot of information, I’m not going to talk about it in the press, too much has been talked about, but based on what I know, I think people need to just take a deep breath, let the facts take shape, uh, challenge now is you got a lot of interesting nuanced folks, this attorney, that attorney, a new attor-, I think there’s three attorneys now.

Dan: Right.

Mayor Newsom: One’s a potential mayoral candidate who’s involved, I mean, this thing’s getting a little crazy, so just everyone temper. The sad thing is this poor family had your young kid beaten up badly, and we’re gonna have to find out who did that and we’re gonna do it in a professional and respectful manner. Someone will be held account, and if it’s more than one person, more than one person. Epithets that were apparently thrown out, if those are determined to be accurate, that’s disgraceful and outrageous, there’s no place in San Francisco and so I’m very disappointed in the behavior of all of these kids that were involved in this incident. Apparently, a lot of people were fighting on all sides and it’s a good reminder how important it is to remind our parents to be good stewards of underage drinking.

Dan: I appreciate that, the only other question I have is, it hasn’t been a very easy week for you, and I wonder whether you have any comment on the Matier and Ross story about the drinking.

Mayor Newsom: I thank you very much. That was a great cheap shot. (walks away) You can’t help yourself. (claps hands together) You cannot. Just know for the record, it’s increasingly impossible to have a conversation with you because I don’t trust you.

Dan: Mayor, it was out there. Mayor, it was out there.

Mayor Newsom: Nah, you know, you just, so just know it’s not personal when I walk by you. You just send some other reporters; it’s going to be a lot easier now.

Dan: Mayor, it’s not personal here either.

Mayor Newsom: I don’t have any animus towards Channel 7.

Dan: I’m sorry?

Mayor Newsom: You, you keep missing consistently a lot of facts because your opinion is so enthusiastic to get in the way all the time. And Dan, let me tell you, the investigation was not helped by a lot of things that are in your report. Just stating that factually, as well.

Dan: It’s just a story, Mayor.

A few more notes on the Baker’s Dozen controversy…

The couple whose daughter hosted the party, Reno Rapagnani and Leanna Dawydiak, tell me no alcohol was served at the party; they had lots of food and soft drinks. But, some of the young men who were involved in the attack on the Baker’s Dozen apparently brought alcohol to the party, and weren’t sharing with other guests – some of whom reportedly asked for a beer. Rapagnani and Dawydiak were not there the night of the incident; they were celebrating New Year’s Eve at a hotel in the city. But, their home is connected to the townhouse next door, where adult family members were checking in on the Baker’s Dozen celebration.

By the way, we mentioned on the air the couple’s connection to the SFPD – they both worked in the legal division, and got swept up in the Fajitagate scandal. Today, the Bay Area Reporter had a good description of what happened:

“In 2002, Dawydiak and Rapagnani discovered their SFPD colleagues were mishandling evidence of police misconduct in the infamous Fajitagate case. Public Defender Jeff Adachi called for a Police Commission investigation into the matter after Rapagnani and Dawydiak told the San Francisco Daily Journal that they quit working in the SFPD legal office after discovering that such key information was being withheld, which did not endear the couple to their co-workers. Dawydiak and Rapagnani sued the city in federal court, claiming that after they publicly criticized the department, they were unjustly blamed for leaking an officer's disciplinary reports to the media. They were later cleared. Dawydiak resigned from the legal division, fearing she'd put her license to practice law at risk by providing incomplete officer personnel information to the courts. The department abandoned the misconduct charges and gave the couple $25,000 to settle a lawsuit claiming their colleagues had sought to punish them. Rapagnani, who worked for the department for 30 years, claims he was forced to retire in January 2005 after the department transferred him out of the legal unit and brought formal disciplinary charges against him.”

Outrage Over Yale Attack

Our investigation into an attack on a Yale University singing group is sparking outrage in San Francisco and across the country.

The Baker’s Dozen came to San Francisco over New Year’s on their winter tour, and were ambushed outside a party held in their honor. Several of the young men went to the hospital with serious injuries. You can watch the report here.

I want to give you a sampling of the e-mail we’ve received, and answer some of the questions that have come in. Don from the East Bay copied us on a message he sent to SFPD Chief Heather Fong, Mayor Gavin Newsom, and each member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors:

“I just watched Channel 7's report on the group of young men who recently visited San Francisco and were purportedly attacked by San Francisco residents while visiting here. If the story, as reported, is even close to being true then I am more than a little disappointed by your handling of this serious crime. I saw your department's hired hack, Givens, on TV suggesting that everything was handled correctly since it was merely a fight and, after all, officers broke up the fight and now an investigation is underway. Are you serious??? This appears to me to be nothing short of a felony assault. An arrest should have been made- as a matter of fact one was required- am I wrong??? Because the suspects are son(s) of a prominent San Francisco doctor didn't play into this? Get real and start doing the job you ought to be doing for the very residents of the city that pay your salary. Somebody needs to pay for this. Have you any excuse for the absolute piss-poor fashion in which your department has handled this??? Do you need the FBI conducting yet another incident of your officers violating somebody's civil rights? Is this the way serious criminal assaults are handled in one of this country's finest cities? What is wrong with you? This is coming from a former peace officer who certainly understands much of what has happened here.”

Glenn from San Francisco writes:

“I want to know if the main perp in this case was a guest in the home of the people who hosted the party? If so, I think that the parents and their daughter have some explaining to do! I also wonder if the police official understands that an investigation should have included photos from the night of the incident. I am embarrassed that the mayor did not comment and agree that it is just another black eye for the city and it's PD!!!! More great reporting by the I-TEAM.... and so long to Annemarie Conroy...at least for now.”

The suspects in this case were not invited guests; they apparently came to the party with people who were invited. We were also surprised that Mayor Newsom chose not to comment. At San Francisco City Hall Monday afternoon, we followed him from the stage at Jerry Brown’s swearing in ceremony as Attorney General and through the crowd. Newsom ignored us until I walked into an elevator with him. Newsom then said he had no idea what I was talking about; I pointed out that his senior advisor, Mike Farrah, knows about this – he’s been dealing with the victims’ families. Still, no response from the mayor.

Timothy writes:

“Please keep this story alive. It is outrageous and sad that no arrests have been made and that so little coverage is happening. Regardless of the sexuality of the victims, that hate and mentality behind this crime is a threat to all citizens. Hold the SFPD accountable. Thanks Dan!”

We will be following up on this story soon. Also, the Yale Daily News ran an article on the incident today. Barbara from San Francisco writes:

“Thank you for finally getting these details on the air. Please continue to follow this story. As a San Franciscan and a mom of an alum from the Yale Baker's Dozen, I was shocked at this attack and bewildered by the lack of follow up by the SFPD! I couldn't believe that it wasn't on the news the day after it occurred. How could this happen in our City?”

That’s our mission – to uncover important stories you haven’t seen anywhere else. Finally, Andrew from Atlanta writes:

“As a gay man who has also been a victim of a hate crime, I beg you to keep this story alive. Do not let these bastards get away with this. Please!”