- postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/14/haley-dictated-panel-finding/
- postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/14/request-brought-irrelevant-material/
- postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/16/ex-backer-slams-haley/
- postandcourier.com/news/2011/dec/30/did-black-quit-over-fallout/
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Dec. 14, 2011
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
This December report shows S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley dictated the conclusions of a committee charged with deciding how the state should implement federal health care reform before the group ever held its first meeting. In a March 31 email thread that included Haley, her top advisers and the committee member who eventually penned the report, Haley wrote, “The whole point of this commission should be to figure out how to opt out and how to avoid a federal takeover, NOT create a state exchange.” The Health Planning Committee’s report, released in November, mirrored that directive. A central part of the federal health care overhaul, an exchange is a marketplace where various insurance plans eventually will be sold. The emails were released to the newspaper in mid-December in response to a Nov. 16 public records request to the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services. I had made a nearly identical request of the governor’s office in May, but that office did not include the emails in its response. The documents show a first-term Republican administration focused on public perception of its handling of the Democratic health care reform law. They also reveal the tight control Haley and her top aides exercise over other state agencies, requiring media inquiries to various state departments to pass through the governor’s office for inspection. News of the fixed conclusion enraged consumer advocates, who met in good faith with the committee more than 30 times over seven months. Taxpayer watchdogs were infuriated that the state used a $1 million federal “exchange planning” grant to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Public records requests were a key part of my reporting. I first wrote that South Carolina would be exploring the possibility of having its own health exchange in May, when I found cost reports related to the $1 million federal grant. I was curious how Haley — who rode a wave of Tea Party support into office less than a year earlier — would justify spending the grant to her conservative backers. I requested documents from the governor’s office — including but not limited to memos, reports and e-mails — that related to health exchange discussions. I specifically requested e-mails between Haley and her top deputies. Haley’s office returned a variety of records, but they contained virtually no information of interest — only press releases, public schedules and other documents that already were posted on the state’s website. I chronologically organized all the documents and put them aside. In November, a political reporter from a competing newspaper wrote a story that described a public records request for all e-mails sent from and received by the governor. Haley’s office returned very little in response to the request. Bottom line: Haley was regularly deleting e-mails or not responding in full to public records requests. At about the same time, the independent panel Haley had appointed to study how the state should implement the federal health care overhaul was finishing its report. I decided to submit the same public records request I sent Haley in May to the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services, whose director is an influential committee member. That agency’s return was drastically different from Haley’s response. I immediately noticed it included many emails that Haley’s office should have included in its return. Among them was the e-mail directive from Haley to Tony Keck, the Health and Human Services director who wrote key portions of the committee’s report.
Explain types of human sources used.
In the seven months leading up to this story, I regularly attended the Health Planning Committee’s meetings. The 12-member group, nonpartisan but dominated by Haley appointees, was charged with deciding whether the state should establish its own health insurance exchange. At these meetings, I met people who were worried about the committee’s lack of progress. One called the planning process “Kabuki Theater.” The state could point to dozens of meetings to show the federal government it was taking steps to implement the health care overhaul. In reality, the decision against setting up a state exchange would be made at the very end of the process, with little debate. After learning that Haley actually had rigged the committee’s outcome, I called on those sources to chime in. Haley’s office refused to answer questions related to the missing e-mails and responded to questions about the pre-determined conclusion only in a short statement. A spokesman said the only opportunity I would have to interview the governor would be at a pre-scheduled public appearance later that week. I drove the two hours from Charleston to Columbia to interview Haley, but she blatantly ignored my questions and her handlers pushed me aside (see video online). The story and video were highlighted in national news segments, including on The Rachel Maddow Show. To press the issue of missing e-mails, I interviewed the political operative who crafted Haley’s most notable victory while still a member of the Legislature, roll call voting. The former Haley backer slammed the governor, saying: “When you run on a platform of fully open, transparent government, you better be the most open elected official at the table every time without exception.” I called on my sources in the state Department of Insurance, the agency that actually received the $1 million federal grant, when I learned the agency’s director abruptly resigned in the wake of the scandal. They told me the former director wanted out of an administration embroiled in a controversy that entangled his agency.
Results:
Here’s a timeline of the results: Dec. 14: First day story shows that Haley dictated the panel’s findings in March, a month before the group met for the first time. In an e-mail, Haley told an influential committee member — the person who wrote key portions of the group’s eventual report — the outcome she expected. Haley did not include that key e-mail in response to a May FOIA request. It was obtained in response to a separate, identical request made in November to the state Department of Health and Human Services. Dec. 15: Committee members chime in about the newspaper’s findings in a follow-up story. One wondered whether he was “an unwitting stooge.” Another said he “could tell by the composition of that committee what the result was going to be.” The panel was dominated by Haley appointees. Dec. 16: An article details Haley’s non-response to questions about the panel’s pre-determined conclusion and about the missing e-mails (the story is included in this application). Video of Haley ignoring my questions goes viral online and is highlighted on The Rachel Maddow Show. A former backer slams the governor, saying: “When you run on a platform of fully open, transparent government, you better be the most open elected official at the table every time without exception.” Dec. 22: Newspaper reports Haley’s announcement that her office will stop deleting e-mails describing policy. Dec. 23: Newspaper reports that U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, requested a federal investigation of the state’s Health Policy grant spending. Citing the Dec. 14 article in The Post and Courier, Harkin asked whether Haley’s administration “made improper use of taxpayer funds” and “whether that grant should be returned to the federal government in full” (the story is included in this application). Dec. 30: Newspaper reports that the director of the state Department of Insurance, the agency that received the $1 million grant, resigned. Sources said the former director wanted out of an administration embroiled in a controversy that entangled his agency.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No corrections or clarification. See response to previous question for details about follow-up.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
I knew from the beginning of the state’s “exchange planning” process that Haley was uneasy about spending federal dollars to implement the health care overhaul. She publicly blasted the law, and South Carolina is among the 26 states suing the federal government over the individual mandate. I suspected that Haley in e-mails had discussed the political sensitivities and public perception of spending the $1 million grant. That’s why I made the May request for e-mails. At that time, it was not publicly known that Haley was deleting e-mails as a matter of course. Otherwise, I would have sent a public records request to the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services — whose director, a Haley appointee, was a likely recipient of the governor’s e-mails — at the same time. Following the missing e-mails controversy, Haley’s office said it would stop deleting e-mails about policy. Still, I now submit requests for e-mails to both the sender and recipient agencies when it’s economical to do so. The reporting prompted dozens of letters to the editor and op-eds. They showed that readers thought the missing e-mail angle was just as important and interesting as the health policy one.