On April 3, 2009, Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders was named "Person of the Year" by PAWLI (Professional Association of Wisconsin Licensed Investigators), a trade group for private eyes. The award, given both for Lueders' work as a reporter and for his role as president of the For the grand entrance, I was thinking about tumbling to the floor, rolling over a few times and coming up with my gun drawn, ready to fire. I mean, that's what you guys do right? Of course not. But it's what people think. Honesty, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the term "licensed private investigator" is Joe Mannix. And then Frank Cannon and Jim Rockford and Barnaby Jones. Cool guys with hot secretaries. Danger is their middle name. I know it's not true, but I bring it up because it's one of the things that connects your profession to mine. Most people have terribly skewed notions of what we do. There are lots of portrayals of reporters on TV and in movies but hardly any that ring true to me. I'm always left wondering, "Why aren't they taking notes?" I just saw a trailer for a movie in which Russell Crowe plays a newspaper reporter. One scene has him dodging bullets in a parking garage. You know what real reporters do in parking garages? We pay the person in the booth. If we're lucky, we get to turn in the receipt for reimbursement. Or there's the media gauntlet -- the mob of reporters snapping pictures, shouting questions, thrusting microphones in people's faces as they enter and leave courtrooms. As for the courtroom scenes themselves, there's never a reporter in sight. They have no interest in the proceeding; they just want the truly bad photos you get when you hold a camera like this. I've covered a few court cases. I've never shouted a question at anyone. My job isn't to shout things out. It's to find things out. On occasion, I've found out about things that even the lawyers didn't know. I almost always know more than the jury. It's hard not to. My job, like yours, is interesting but not glamorous. It's not about being cool; it's about being competent. It's not about shooting our way out of jams. It's about obtaining information, often from public sources. The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which last fall celebrated its 30th anniversary, consists mainly of media representatives but it claims no special rights of access for members of the press. We believe that all members of the public are entitled to a maximum amount of public information. But let's face it. Most people don't do what we do. They don't make open records requests or look through court files or obtain corporate reports from the state Department of Financial Institutions. Worse, they don't understand why or how we do what we do. My purpose here tonight is to peg this as a problem, and suggest a solution. I think both of our professions need to identify the misperceptions that people have about us and try to counter them -- fittingly enough, with information. There are a lot of misperceptions. Even people who know that private investigators don't get in a lot of shootouts may think that they're creeps, ruining people's lives for no good reason. Even people who know reporters find out things by asking questions and taking notes may think they're a menace, ruining people's lives for no good reason. The truth is, both of our professions are highly ethical. We may have access to more information than the ordinary person but we do not use it recklessly. Often, we don't use it as all. Every reporter, and I assume every private investigator, learns things that we decide not to disseminate. For instance, I've looked into several tips about Madison police officers that I decided not to write about, because the stories were more about the officers' personal lives than their professional ones. I've seen stuff in court files and police reports that I knew would be profoundly embarrassing to certain individuals, and did not use it to embarrass them. We make judgments about newsworthiness or relevance and cut people a break. All the time. Moreover, and this is something else the public doesn't understand, both of our professions involve a search for the truth. If I'm checking out a story and learn information that undercuts one of my assumptions, I don't disregard it. I change my assumptions. In fact, I often tell people who come to me with stories: I am not on your side. My responsibility is to the story, and not to you. I may like you and agree with you, but in the end it doesn't matter what I think; the only thing that matters is what I find. The same goes for private eyes. If you are hired to find out what you can about a person and you find out something that goes against the interest of your client, you share it anyway. Your client may or may not make use of it, but your obligation is to the truth. And no matter what you find out, you respect rules and boundaries regarding its use. You don't blab it to your neighbor or post it online. Journalists and private investigators prove through their conduct that people can be trusted to make responsible use of public information. But we don't talk much about this, and misperceptions run wild. In fact, when it comes to access to information, people tend to assume the very worst about human nature. For much of the last decade, I've been sparing with Marlin Schneider, the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin Rapids. I like Marlin, and I respect him. I think it's good that he fights for people's right to privacy. But I also think he is too quick to conclude that people will misuse information. Take WCCA, the state's online court records system, which everyone calls CCAP, incorrectly. Marlin would like to limit what information is available on the site, and restrict who has access. He says employers use the site to discriminate against people who have criminal records; landlords use it to deny housing; lonely hearts use it to screen their dates. All of these things occur, I don't dispute that. But where I challenge Marlin's world view is when he says these things occur universally, and cavalierly. He talks about job applicants being rejected and incumbents voted out of office because they happen to have the same name as a sex offender, which sets tongues to wagging. He seems to think the rumor-mongers don't even care that it's the wrong person. They just want to hurt someone. Yes, some people will discriminate against a job applicant or prospective tenant because of things in their past. Sometimes it's legal to do so, sometimes its not. But people are not as mean as Marlin seems to think. The truth is that some employers post job openings because they need workers. Some landlords put out the "For rent" sign because they want tenants. And some people are willing to take risks and give second chances. They make reasonable judgments and cut others a break. I've been invited on occasion to speak to the Wisconsin Landlords Association. One of the property managers told me what she's thinking when she types a name into WCCA to look for past evictions and other relevant transgressions: "Oh please, oh please, oh please." Not "Oh please" let there be some reason to discriminate; "Oh please" let this person be okay so I can start overcharging him for rent. (Well, she didn't put it quite like that.) Rep. Schneider is not the only one eager to rein in WCCA. The governor's budget includes a provision to remove from the site cases in which people are evicted when banks foreclose on rental properties. Why not just say they were evicted through no fault of their own? Why make it harder to find out what banks are throwing people out of their homes? Last year a bill was introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature to remove from WCCA the names of individuals who are charged with crimes but who end up with acquittals or dismissals. It may be reintroduced this session. To a lot of people this sounds like a good idea: Why should your name be on the site if you've beaten the rap? I'm glad you asked. I can think of several reasons: One, if some kinds of cases are removed, then the site is no longer a comprehensive source of information about the state court system. That will create an opportunity for private, for-profit providers, with whom it is a lot harder to correct inaccuracies. At least the state system has methods for doing this. Two, the state should not be allowed to file charges against people and possibly even put them in jail, then decide this was the wrong thing to do, or be proven wrong, and make the whole thing disappear. Three, if you erase all the charges that lead to dismissals or acquittals, every prosecutor in the state will have a 100% conviction record for every offense, according to this resource. I'm sure some prosecutors would like this. Four, just as not everyone charged with a crime is guilty, not everyone who beats the rap is innocent. Say some guy is charged on three separate occasions with molesting children; but he has a really good attorney and each time gets a dismissal or acquittal. Then he moves into your neighborhood and starts showing an interest in your kids. He seems nice but you want to check him out. Do you really want, when you go to WCCA, for him to come up clean? Finally, I reject the notion that we must protect against the possibility that people may make inappropriate use of information by denying access to information. I would prefer to give people more and better information. That's what journalists and private investigators do -- appropriately and responsibly. We ought to be setting an example, in word and deed. We ought to remind our fellow citizens of the wisdom and importance of what they've been told all their lives, by their parents, schools and churches: People are not perfect. They screw up, they make mistakes. Often they learn from their mistakes. They become better people. They are not defined by their past. They deserve the breaks that others are willing to cut for them. Our most important human quality is our capacity for mercy.
Making responsible use of public information: Bill Lueders on journalists and private eyes
Linda Falkenstein