[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 21 18:33:53 PDT 2009
It's a good question. Since emails involve two parties, all you need is
an email that was sent from a private address that addressed public
business. Just one such message would be enough to warrant scrutiny. I
don't know the story behind this, so I don't know if there is such
evidence or not.
Paul
a wrote:
> 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 <mailto:bear at moscow.com>>
> To: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>>; "Saundra Lund"
> <sslund_2007 at verizon.net <mailto:sslund_2007 at verizon.net>>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list