[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level

bear at moscow.com bear at moscow.com
Tue Apr 21 08:11:14 PDT 2009


Hi Joe,

I'm not a "teabager" in any sense of the definition, but I am going to jump in on this
one.

First, the role of the City Attorney, based on the Functions and Mission Statement that
they 
have published are:
Function:
The City Attorney is the primary legal counsel for the City Council, Boards and
Commissions, 
the City Supervisor, City Departments, officers and employees. The City Attorney provides
legal 
representation and advises City officials on all legal matters involving the City,
including land 
use, personnel, contracts, real property transactions, elections, and re-development. The
City 
Attorney represents the City in state and federal court, oversees outside counsel handling
other 
litigation, and completes other tasks as assigned.

Mission Statement:
To provide highest quality legal services and advice to the Mayor, Council and City
Departments 
with minimal use of outside assistance of counsel so that the interests of justice and
fairness 
are served and the values of the community are upheld.
To conduct fair and even-handed prosecution services which focus on our responsibility to
do 
justice tempered with mercy.

Now that we know what the functions and mission are, we have to ask a logical question in 
regards to the issue at hand, which as I read it is if city council members use private
emails to 
conduct city business, should those records of city business be accessible to the public
under The Idaho Public Records Law; AND if there is a question as to if they are or not,
should  the 
city provide money to determine that for the individual councilors?

Well, they have legal counsel to go to to BEFORE they potentially violate a state law. DID
they go 
to and ask that legal counsel for advice BEFORE they acted? IF they didn't, why not?And if
they 
didn't, the individuals should be on the hook for their own legal bills.

It also begs the question that since City Councilors have legal advice before they act,
and they 
have a city provided e-mail address with which to conduct city business, WHY did they use
a 
private address to conduct such business?

So the questions we are faced with based on last nights decision to provide these City 
Councilors money for private legal counsel is multi-faceted.
 1) Why didn't they get legal counsel from the City Attorney before they acted? This would

question if they understand the functions of the City Attorney or understand their jobs as
city 
councilors.

2) Did they get advice from the City Attorney,  did they take it? IF they took it, no
matter what 
that legal advice was, the City Attorney should be representing them, not private legal
counsel.

3) If the City Attorney told them it was not legal to conduct city business and they
ignored that 
advice, then they are on the hook for their own legal bills, not the citizens of the City
of 
moscow.

4) IF they did in fact. violate the Idaho Public Records Law by using a private computer
address 
to conduct city business, it questions their abilities and ethics, and why should the
citizens be 
paying TWICE (City Attorney and private legal counsel) for their actions?

Comments?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Teabagers? Any thoughts on this? 
> I didn't think so! 
> Joe Campbell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:38 AM, "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>  
> wrote:
> > Visionaries:
> > Wow -- I just watched the City Council vote to spend  ***our***  
> > money to
> > help two City Council members retain legal counsel to figure out  
> > whether or
> > not they have to comply with Idaho Public Records Law with respect to
> > official business conducted from "private" email accounts.  In a  
> > nutshell,
> > our money is going to be spent to try to figure out how to get  
> > around Idaho
> > Public Records law.
> > Of course, it's a no brainer that once public officials choose to use
> > "private" email accounts for public business, they lose the  
> > expectation of
> > privacy with respect to official business they conduct from those  
> > "private"
> > email accounts.  More concerning, I think, is the use of "private"  
> > email
> > accounts to conduct public business in an attempt to avoid both  
> > legitimate
> > public record requests *and* public scrutiny of public business.
> > This is just crazy -- our City Council, led by John Weber and egged  
> > on by
> > Gary Riedner, just agreed to spend $2500 for *initial* legal advice  
> > for
> > *each* of the two City Council members (Steed and Krauss) -- out of a
> > legislative available pool of  $10,000 -- who are apparently balking  
> > at
> > turning over public records. Spend Crazy Weber made it clear
> > we-the-taxpayers should be on the hook for as much money as it takes  
> > for
> > these two Council members to fight complying with public records  
> > law.  And
> > Weber also felt perfectly comfortable in making a snarky response to  
> > the
> > sole Council member who wasn't comfortable giving carte blanche in  
> > the form
> > of an open checkbook to defend the attempt to *not* comply with  
> > Idaho Public
> > Records Law.  Clearly, the expectation of professional conduct in  
> > conducting
> > public business is far and above Weber's abilities.
> >
> > The fact of the matter is that if they were willing to turn over the  
> > items
> > that are, by definition, part of the public record, there would be  
> > no need
> > for *us* to pay for private legal counsel for them.  It will be  
> > interesting
> > to see what attorneys are going to benefit from this public financial
> > windfall.
> >
> > And, of course, all of this could have been easily avoided had they  
> > simply
> > used City-supplied email accounts rather than trying to hide things  
> > from
> > public view for a personal "pet project" that a clear majority of  
> > tax payers
> > don't support.  The City has been well aware for quite a long time  
> > of the
> > specific problems with "private" email accounts being used to  
> > conduct City
> > business, yet they've chosen to take the path of least resistance,  
> > which is
> > now costing us Real Money, not to mention eroding public confidence.
> >
> > Not surprisingly, both Council members who are trying to avoid with
> > complying with Idaho's Public Records Laws were GMA candidates.  If  
> > nothing
> > else, the actions of these two Council members make clear that GMA is
> > heavily invested in continuing the good ol' boy network that  
> > absolutely
> > hasn't served our community well.
> >
> > Coupled with the changes in fees they also approved tonight to make  
> > getting
> > public records more expensive for us, it's clear this current council
> > doesn't give a rip about transparency or accountability.  It's all  
> > about the
> > good ol' boy network being alive and well here to continue to allow  
> > public
> > business to be conducted out of public view, and they ought to be  
> > ashamed.
> >
> > So, here's the real test of those who turned out for local Tea  
> > Parties:  do
> > you really care about the issues you protested?  If so, you have an
> > obligation to protest this blatant waste of ***our*** scarce local  
> > taxpayer
> > funds.  If you can't make a difference locally -- in your home town  
> > -- then
> > your efforts at the bigger picture are meaningless.  So, let's just  
> > see how
> > genuine your concerns really are.  Pardon me if I don't hold my breath
> > because looking at the GMA leadership, it doesn't take a genius to  
> > see that
> > those involved are totally hooked into old ideas of leadership that  
> > have
> > historically failed to serve our community well.
> >
> > And, to John Weber:  you're the one who clearly has no interest in
> > generating goodwill when you are oh, so willing to waste the hard- 
> > earned
> > taxpayer dollars you take from us to advance your personal special
> > interests.  You perceive that your buddies are "under attack" simply  
> > because
> > a member of the public understands Idaho Public Record Law.  How  
> > about you
> > taking the time to inform yourself -- there's really nothing  
> > complicated
> > about the issue -- before you go off half-cocked yet again?  Give us  
> > all a
> > breath of fresh by showing you have the *ability* to actually  
> > understand the
> > issues that come before you -- there are a great many of us who  
> > continue to
> > wait . . . and wait. . . and wait for that glimmer of actual  
> > understanding
> > rather than your knee-jerk responses to "defend" your personal  
> > buddies at
> > the expense of the clear spirit and intent of Idaho's Public Records  
> > Laws.
> >
> > Basically, I'm of the opinion that if we-the-people don't *demand*
> > transparency and accountability in our own community, it's foolhardy  
> > to
> > think we'll ever get it at the state or federal level.  And, sadly,  
> > the
> > actions of our Council tonight is a great example of that truism.
> >
> >
> > Disgusted,
> > Saundra Lund
> > Moscow, ID
> >
> > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people  
> > to do
> > nothing.
> > ~ Edmund Burke
> >
> > ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through  
> > life plus
> > 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce  
> > outside
> > the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> > author.*****
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 





---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/




More information about the Vision2020 mailing list