[Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 22 21:13:56 PDT 2009
Paul,
I doubt it was confusion that led to the Palin dmin's use of personal email accounts. It was an effort to get around disclosure, I'd bet.
Sunil
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:53:31 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: sslund_2007 at verizon.net
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level
>
> 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
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090422/7878ec1d/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list