[Vision2020] Moscowgate: Wasted Money: City Level
bear at moscow.com
bear at moscow.com
Tue Apr 21 15:08:59 PDT 2009
Kai,
You are 100% correct on this one! First the Nixon tapes, then the missing Bush White
House e-
mails (13 APR 07: Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman
Dana Perino acknowledged Friday."I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million
e-
mails lost," Perino told reporters.) and now this nonsense!
To me it doesn't matter to which party, which organization etc that support these folks or
which they belong to, Public business IS public record!
Any discussion of an independent inquiry into this, separate from the legal issue by the
City
Council as a whole, to inquire IF this type of nonsense is taking place? IF there is
nothing to
hide, what can be feared of an inquiry?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> =========================> =========================> =====
=====
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.com/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list