[Vision2020] Concerning the Cell Phone Stipend and Public Disclosure

[Saundra Lund]

Tom, thanks for clarifying.

While I don't agree that the math is a problem (to my recollection, the City
has passed many things with a 3 aye, 2 nay, and 1 abstention vote), I was
disappointed that the whole cell phone reimbursement topic you brought to
our attention didn't generate more discussion here even though it would have
been after the fact.  Not that I have any room to talk since I don't believe
I commented, either, but I think there's plenty to discuss about the new
position that elected officials are entitled to a monthly reimbursement of
$25 for voice and $50 for voice & data for their personal cell phones.

What's next?  Are we-the-taxpayers going to start paying a reimbursement for
their home & business landlines because they may take/make "city business"
calls and/or access email from those as well?  How about reimbursing a
portion of their rent or mortgages since they may work from home as a
convenience rather than going to City Hall?  Since the taxpayers will be
paying for the cell phone reimbursement, will the numbers be publicized so
that those of us footing the bill can reach their elected officials who are
reportedly rarely available by phone at City Hall?

It seems kind of odd to me that at a time when just about everyone else in
our community has found it necessary to do some pretty drastic
belt-tightening that our City Council & City Supervisor are looking for ways
to spend our money for mere convenience rather than out of any necessity.  I
heard NOTHING in those two discussions pertaining to any new necessity
showing why cell service by of our council members to have or use cell
phones is needed, and indeed, it seems there *is* no necessity since
having/using a cell phone isn't a requirement for our council members.  And,
I looked at the numbers to justify that idea that it reeaaally isn't going
to cost mooooreeee, and there's too much speculation in those numbers for
any honest person to try to make a "this will SAVE money"  argument with a
straight face.

Further, there's no oversight:  the reimbursement is a simple "submit your
form monthly & we'll fork over the money."  There's not even a requirement
that the cost of the service be at least as much as the reimbursement.  It's
certainly conceivable that the city will be paying $25 for a service that
only costs the council member $10 or $50 for a service that only costs the
council member $25.  Not that I'm saying a council member would be
dishonest, but that's how the system they voted in favor is set up, which
strikes me as incredibly fiscally irresponsible.

If times were flush, perhaps the vote would have made sense, but quite
frankly, for it to happen during these difficult financial times -- and by
some who claim to be fiscal conservatives -- is an insult to the taxpayers.
Are we not supposed to care about the cost because it's "just" nickels &
dimes?

Like you, Tom, I also have concerns about transparency, accountability, and
about public records.  To put it in the most generous terms, we know that
some City Council members have historically lacked any kind of competent
understanding of Idaho Public Records Law and thus have failed to comply
with the public record law requirements, something that has cost
we-the-taxpayers more than a pretty penny.

As Randy Fife made clear (at least to me) in his comments, emails conducting
city business that are sent from private email accounts are NOT exempt from
Idaho Public Records law, but since the City isn't the custodian of those
records, the burden is on the individual elected official as custodian, a
situation that also applies to text messages.  This means that submitting a
public records request to the City is no longer good enough:  citizens
interested in transparency & accountability by examining public records now
have to take additional steps -- and perhaps incur additional costs -- to
get access to public documents that are supposed to be available for
inspection "at all reasonable times."

Now, we're supposed to know that our elected officials may be conducting
city business using non-city resources.  Second, we'll have to submit public
records requests to *each* elected official, in addition to the City, since
each elected official will now be an individual custodian of certain public
records.  Third, we'll have to hope that the elected official has acted
responsibly as a public records custodian with no training and no oversight
of that public records management, and that he/she also has implemented
appropriate personal measures to protect against technology disaster,
accidental deletion, etc.  Don't *even* get me started on the mechanisms in
place by the City's IT department to ensure that public documents aren't
inadvertently or intentionally irretrievably lost compared to a likely
absence of protection for public records residing solely with individual
council members.  Folks also need to understand that the various "email
providers" council members may use to conduct City business are NOT bound by
public records law & thus don't have to do a darn thing to protect public
records or retrieve inadvertently or intentionally deleted public records.
Cost, too, can become prohibitive for we-the-taxpayers when for-profit
businesses are brought into the public records arena.

IOW, the council's decision to use taxpayer dollars to provide elected
officials reimbursement for a resource used to conduct City business has a
high potential to undermine Idaho Public Records law, as anemic as the
existing law is with no real mechanism for enforcement.

What training have our elected officials received to get them up to speed on
Idaho Public Records law in general and with respect to their individual
responsibilities as custodians of public records when using non-city
resources specifically?

It seems to me this vote was nothing so much as a rushing to do something
"someone" wanted as a convenience without bothering to adequately examine
the big picture.  It was, quite frankly, pretty telling that while some
council members were anxious to get answers about what the reimbursement
meant to them *personally,* not a single one seemed to care about the
ramifications of the problematic preservation of public records when the
City isn't the custodian (when the elected official is choosing to use
non-city resources to conduct city business as a *convenience*) to ask
intelligent questions about what this move would mean for the PUBLIC
interested in transparency & accountability.

Almost as disappointing is that those we PAY -- and pay quite well (i.e.,
attorney City Supervisor & City Attorney) -- who have the education &
training to understand the potential and even perhaps likely consequences
with respect to Idaho Public Records law didn't seem to make any attempt to
educate our council members.  Maybe there were all kinds of discussions
behind-the-scenes that addressed this stuff, but we don't know because it
wasn't discussed PUBLICLY.

Oh, well . . . it's not like any of us have an interest in public records
law compliance, is it?  Our Attorney General is just plain wrong in his
opinion:
"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."

Uh-huh.


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 2010 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.*****



-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:50 AM
To: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: [Vision2020] Concerning the Cell Phone Stipend and Public
Disclosure

Greetings Visionaires -

My sincerest apologies for wrongfully interpreting the Public Works and
Finance Committee's discussion on October 25th concerning the proposed cell
phone stipend for elected officials as it relates to public disclosure.

Contrary to my comments and flawed belief, emails generated on cell phones
by elected officials, and maintained on city servers (emails generated from
city accounts) ARE susceptible to public records requests, as evidenced at
the 9:20 mark of the video located at:

http://moscowcares.com/PWF_102510_CellPhoneStipend.htm

Again, my sincerest apologies for my lack of basic understanding.

That said . . .

Although my comprehension of the October 25th PWF session may be flawed, my
sense of basic math is very well intact.

Passage of the proposed cell phone stipend required a "majorioty of members
present".  This DID NOT happen.  If you recall, the vote was 3 ayes, 2 nays,
and 1 abstention.  My grade school public education reminds me that 3 plus 2
plus 1 equals 6 (and has for a long, long time) and that
3 is NOT the majority of 6.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown


=======================================================
 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
=======================================================