[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
Saundra Lund
sslund_2007 at verizon.net
Tue Apr 21 21:05:26 PDT 2009
More will follow, but I wanted to correct this bit of bad information
straight away! The source of Mr. Crabtree's bad information is apparently
an article in this evening's Daily News - clearly he was neither at the
meeting nor watched it on TV for him to pass along bad info.
Gary Crabtree wrote:
"It's a little hard to get overly exersized over spending $2500.00 in funds
allready budgeted for situations precisely like this."
Nope, the initial total is $5000, with $2500 for Steed and $2500 for Krauss.
Here are the details I got from watching the discussion.
There were two separate motions -- one for Steed and one for Krauss -- and
each motion was for $2500 initially with discussion that these amounts are
subject to further modification if the *initial* $2500 for *each* of the two
council members is insufficient. The *total* for both motions is currently
$5000. This will come out of the $10,000 currently available in the
"Non-prioritized Project" line item of the Legislative budget.
Specifically, Weber's first motion for Steed did not include a financial cap
as suggested by Riedner -- in fact, Weber emphatically stated he was fine
with his motion as proposed even after Riedner specifically suggested there
should be a financial limit if they were going to use Resolution 83-20
(which specifically pertains to "legal actions," not public records
requests) as a model (Riedner had made the point previously as well during
discussion before Weber's motion). This motion was passed with Lamar voting
"nay."
When Steed made the motion with respect to Krauss, he paid attention to
Riedner's comments and included an *initial* cap of $2500 (IIRC, Riedner had
suggested $1000-2000 per Council member as an *initial* amount). The motion
was unanimously passed.
Council then went back to modify (I'm drawing a blank on the technical term
used) Weber's initial motion for Steed to include an initial amount of $2500
for Steed. This modification passed unanimously.
So, the *initial* total is $5000, exactly half the money available: $2500
for Steed and $2500 for Krauss.
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.*****
From: a [mailto:smith at turbonet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Joe Campbell; Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com; bear at moscow.com
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: < <mailto:bear at moscow.com> bear at moscow.com>
To: "Joe Campbell" < <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
philosopher.joe at gmail.com>; "Saundra Lund" <
<mailto:sslund_2007 at verizon.net> sslund_2007 at verizon.net>; <
<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 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" <
<mailto:sslund_2007 at verizon.net> 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> http://www.fsr.net
>> > <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 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> http://www.fsr.net
>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> <http://www.fsr.com/> http://www.fsr.com/
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> <http://www.fsr.net> http://www.fsr.net
> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09
08:30:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090421/a7c58388/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list