[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 22 20:53:31 PDT 2009
Saundra,
Thank you for the information. I know more about what we're talking
about, now. I'd been assuming that they had accounts on some city email
server or something. I don't know the law in Moscow or Idaho about this,
but if there isn't a specific law to treat all work-related emails as
official documents, then there sure should be. If the potential of
having personal emails disclosed accidentally is a concern, they could
always get another account themselves that they use strictly for
council-related business. Better yet would be to have a
City-administered server and the accounts created there.
I had originally thought it was a similar situation to what Sarah Palin
was involved in, but it's even worse. They don't have the two accounts
to confuse - it's all on their personal accounts.
Paul
Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> Gary Crabtree 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.”
>
> I considered whether or not to respond since Mr. Crabtree certainly
> doesn’t consider me “unbiased,” so he’ll be inclined to find some lame
> excuse to discount my response and to vomit more invective in my
> direction.
>
> However, since this is something others may legitimately wonder (Wayne
> Price seemed to be asking something similar, and I see Paul Rumelhart
> has posted), I’ll answer J
>
> First, consider that the email addys given on the City’s Web site for
> some Council members *are* their “private,” rather than City, email
> addys. So, absent any specific examples, it’s a pretty sure bet that
> city business is being conducted through those “private” email addys –
> I sincerely doubt I’m the only one who has contacted council members
> in this manner. This is something anyone is free to verify for themselves:
>
> “(Note: to email all Council members you may use the link on the
> bottom of this page)”
>
> http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/council/MeetCouncil.asp
>
> Clicking on the line provides the following:
>
> blambert at ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:blambert at ci.moscow.id.us>;
> dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>;
> jweber at moscow.com <mailto:jweber at moscow.com>; tlamar at moscow.com
> <mailto:tlamar at moscow.com>; wmsteed at aol.com <mailto:wmsteed at aol.com>;
> wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>
>
> Second, I personally have contacted council members regarding City
> business via the email addys provided on the City Web site, and I’ve
> received email responses discussing City business from the “private”
> email addys of Council members. An exception would be John Weber: in
> the time since his election, I don’t think he’s learned to use email
> as he stated he would do since *every single time* I’ve tried to
> contact him, I get a delivery failure notice (522 5.0.0 User mailbox
> size is over quota). <shaking my head>
>
> Third, there are quite a few examples of Visionaries contacting
> Council members via email (using the email addys provided by the City
> Web site) about City business right in the V2020 archives J Since Mr.
> Crabtree will use any contrived excuse to discount my personal reports
> to defend his buddies, here’s an example from someone else:
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-January/060475.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Bev Bafus
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:49 PM
> To: blambert at ci.moscow.id.us; dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us;
> jweber at moscow.com; tlamar at moscow.com; wmsteed at aol.com;
> wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us; nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Snow problems
>
> Fourth, I personally have received responses from Council members
> using their “private” email addys to respond to inquiries from me
> regarding city business. Here’s a recent example (header only),
> although, again, I’m sure this will fail to satisfy Mr. Crabtree:
>
> *From:* WMSteed at aol.com [mailto:WMSteed at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:51 PM
> *To:* sslund_2007 at verizon.net
> *Subject:* Re: Rescind or End Motion & End the Taxpayers' Costs**
>
> Finally, there are plenty of examples in the V2020 archives of Council
> members using their “private” email addys to respond to inquiries
> discussing City business. I’m not going to do any more of Mr.
> Crabtree’s work for him, but I personally verified at least two
> instances from current Council members.
>
> So, no, Mr. Crabtree: unlike the “fishing expedition” public record
> requests submitted by your Kirk cronies, there’s ample evidence that
> some Council members are using their “private” email addys to conduct
> City business. Those emails absolutely are covered by Idaho Public
> Records law, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we-the-taxpayers are
> on the financial hook to the tune of at least $5000 because some
> Council members seem to suffer from serious ethical challenge with
> respect to complying with Idaho Public Records law, law that’s in
> place to protect we-the-people.
>
> For those who are interested in learning more, the AG’s office has a
> pretty nifty booklet that explains Idaho Public Records law:
>
> http://www2.state.id.us/ag/manuals/publicrecords.pdf
>
> From AG Wasden’s introduction:
>
> “Open government is the cornerstone of a free society. The Idaho
> Legislature affirmed Idaho’s commitment to open government by enacting
> the Idaho Public Records Law in 1990. The Public Records Law protects
> each citizen’s right to monitor the actions of state and local
> government entities by providing access to governmental records.”
>
> As those who take the time to become familiar with Idaho Public
> Records law know, it’s certainly not rocket science to understand the
> stuff! No, email correspondence isn’t specifically addressed, but as
> our resident journalist Kai explained:
>
> “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.”
>
> In 2005, AG Wasden had his deputy AGs tour the state giving workshops
> about Idaho’s Open Meeting & Public Records laws – they were here July
> 21, 2005. I attended, and our local governments were amply
> represented, which makes it all the more concerning that our public
> officials are having difficulty with the concept and with compliance.
> That “difficulty” or seemingly blatant unwillingness to comply is now
> costing *us* money.
>
> And, I have to comment that those very Council members who were the
> biggest whiners about the costs of fighting the Great Water Give-Away
> to Hawkins have absolutely no problem throwing money to each other
> hand over fist to fight complying with a law that’s supposed to
> protect us from government! What’s with that?! They are, I think,
> excellent examples of elected officials who don’t want transparency in
> government . . . people who are stuck in the past and people who are
> seemingly not up to the ethical requirements of public service.
>
> Another excuse made last night was the “difficulty” Wayne Fox’s
> requests present because they go back to when Steed & Krauss took
> office. Well, HELLLLOOOO! Had Krauss & Steed been regularly turning
> over emails dealing with public business sent to & from their
> “private” email accounts, this would be a non-issue. The fault is not
> with Wayne Fox’s requests, but rather with the failure of council
> members to comply with Idaho Public Records law, and to imply
> otherwise is offensive in the extreme. Yet, the Council members opted
> to use these public records requests as an “excuse” to further
> financially gouge those seeking access to public records!
>
> A skeptical person might wonder why these particular requests were
> used to jack up rates when previous “fishing expedition” public
> records requests were completed with a smile.
>
> Finally, Gary Crabtree wrote:
>
> “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.”
>
> Given Mr. Crabtree’s obvious animosity towards me, I don’t expect any
> of this will satisfy him and cause him to rebuke his pals or object to
> this clear waste of taxpayer money. I’m sure he’s still heartbroken
> that his heroine Sarah Palin was caught violating the same idea of
> public records.
>
> However, for others with questions who have managed to read this far,
> I hope this helps.
>
> 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: <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
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list