[Vision2020] Moscowgate: Wasted Money: City Level
bear at moscow.com
bear at moscow.com
Tue Apr 21 20:13:28 PDT 2009
And IF there is one out there it will surface, and then what?
Politically (no matter what party or leanings) it ALWAYS looks worse when it surfaces from
a
third party than when the culprit comes up with it first. Because when it does finally
come out,
it then looks like you're hiding something.
> 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
> > =======================================================
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.com/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list