[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
Kai Eiselein
editor at lataheagle.com
Tue Apr 21 14:11:36 PDT 2009
Any correspondence regarding public business, with a few exceptions, is a matter of public record. It doesn't matter if they were sent from a private email account, they must be allowed to be seen by the public at will.
Public business IS the public's business.
----- Original Message -----
From: a
To: Joe Campbell ; Saundra Lund ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; bear at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
A question that leaps to mind would have to be, WAS any city business conducted via private e-mail or is this simply a great big fishing expedition/harassment technique conducted by someone who is'nt a resident of the city of Moscow and who harbors resentment that his treasured MCA council members were shown the door in such a overwhelming manner? Is it "city business" every time the topic of water is mentioned in a private E-mail? Once I hear an unbiased answer to these questions it will be easier to have an opinion. It's a little hard to get overly exersized over spending $2500.00 in funds allready budgeted for situations precisely like this. Don't get me wrong, any unnessacary spending is to be avoided but I have yet to hear any evidence that would justify forcing council members to give access to private communications to comply with what may well be a frivolous or unlawfull request.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: <bear at moscow.com>
To: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; "Saundra Lund" <sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
> 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/
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09 08:30:00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090421/abb01bb2/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list