<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>bear@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "Joe Campbell" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>philosopher.joe@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>;
"Saundra Lund" <</FONT><A href="mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>sslund_2007@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>; <</FONT><A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:11 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City
Level</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Hi Joe,<BR>> <BR>> I'm not a "teabager" in any sense of the
definition, but I am going to jump in on this<BR>> one.<BR>> <BR>>
First, the role of the City Attorney, based on the Functions and Mission
Statement that<BR>> they <BR>> have published are:<BR>>
Function:<BR>> The City Attorney is the primary legal counsel for the City
Council, Boards and<BR>> Commissions, <BR>> the City Supervisor, City
Departments, officers and employees. The City Attorney provides<BR>> legal
<BR>> representation and advises City officials on all legal matters
involving the City,<BR>> including land <BR>> use, personnel, contracts,
real property transactions, elections, and re-development. The<BR>> City
<BR>> Attorney represents the City in state and federal court, oversees
outside counsel handling<BR>> other <BR>> litigation, and completes other
tasks as assigned.<BR>> <BR>> Mission Statement:<BR>> To provide
highest quality legal services and advice to the Mayor, Council and City<BR>>
Departments <BR>> with minimal use of outside assistance of counsel so that
the interests of justice and<BR>> fairness <BR>> are served and the values
of the community are upheld.<BR>> To conduct fair and even-handed prosecution
services which focus on our responsibility to<BR>> do <BR>> justice
tempered with mercy.<BR>> <BR>> Now that we know what the functions and
mission are, we have to ask a logical question in <BR>> regards to the issue
at hand, which as I read it is if city council members use private<BR>>
emails to <BR>> conduct city business, should those records of city business
be accessible to the public<BR>> under The Idaho Public Records Law; AND if
there is a question as to if they are or not,<BR>> should the <BR>>
city provide money to determine that for the individual councilors?<BR>>
<BR>> Well, they have legal counsel to go to to BEFORE they potentially
violate a state law. DID<BR>> they go <BR>> to and ask that legal counsel
for advice BEFORE they acted? IF they didn't, why not?And if<BR>> they
<BR>> didn't, the individuals should be on the hook for their own legal
bills.<BR>> <BR>> It also begs the question that since City Councilors
have legal advice before they act,<BR>> and they <BR>> have a city
provided e-mail address with which to conduct city business, WHY did they
use<BR>> a <BR>> private address to conduct such business?<BR>>
<BR>> So the questions we are faced with based on last nights decision to
provide these City <BR>> Councilors money for private legal counsel is
multi-faceted.<BR>> 1) Why didn't they get legal counsel from the City
Attorney before they acted? This would<BR>> <BR>> question if they
understand the functions of the City Attorney or understand their jobs
as<BR>> city <BR>> councilors.<BR>> <BR>> 2) Did they get advice
from the City Attorney, did they take it? IF they took it, no<BR>>
matter what <BR>> that legal advice was, the City Attorney should be
representing them, not private legal<BR>> counsel.<BR>> <BR>> 3) If the
City Attorney told them it was not legal to conduct city business and
they<BR>> ignored that <BR>> advice, then they are on the hook for their
own legal bills, not the citizens of the City<BR>> of <BR>>
moscow.<BR>> <BR>> 4) IF they did in fact. violate the Idaho Public
Records Law by using a private computer<BR>> address <BR>> to conduct city
business, it questions their abilities and ethics, and why should the<BR>>
citizens be <BR>> paying TWICE (City Attorney and private legal counsel) for
their actions?<BR>> <BR>> Comments?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>
Teabagers? Any thoughts on this? <BR>>> I didn't think so! <BR>>>
Joe Campbell<BR>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>>> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:38 AM, "Saundra Lund" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>sslund_2007@verizon.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
<BR>>> wrote:<BR>>> > Visionaries:<BR>>> > Wow -- I just
watched the City Council vote to spend ***our*** <BR>>> >
money to<BR>>> > help two City Council members retain legal counsel to
figure out <BR>>> > whether or<BR>>> > not they have to
comply with Idaho Public Records Law with respect to<BR>>> > official
business conducted from "private" email accounts. In a <BR>>>
> nutshell,<BR>>> > our money is going to be spent to try to figure
out how to get <BR>>> > around Idaho<BR>>> > Public
Records law.<BR>>> > Of course, it's a no brainer that once public
officials choose to use<BR>>> > "private" email accounts for public
business, they lose the <BR>>> > expectation of<BR>>> >
privacy with respect to official business they conduct from those
<BR>>> > "private"<BR>>> > email accounts. More
concerning, I think, is the use of "private" <BR>>> >
email<BR>>> > accounts to conduct public business in an attempt to
avoid both <BR>>> > legitimate<BR>>> > public record
requests *and* public scrutiny of public business.<BR>>> > This is just
crazy -- our City Council, led by John Weber and egged <BR>>> >
on by<BR>>> > Gary Riedner, just agreed to spend $2500 for *initial*
legal advice <BR>>> > for<BR>>> > *each* of the two City
Council members (Steed and Krauss) -- out of a<BR>>> > legislative
available pool of $10,000 -- who are apparently balking <BR>>>
> at<BR>>> > turning over public records. Spend Crazy Weber made it
clear<BR>>> > we-the-taxpayers should be on the hook for as much money
as it takes <BR>>> > for<BR>>> > these two Council
members to fight complying with public records <BR>>> >
law. And<BR>>> > Weber also felt perfectly comfortable in making
a snarky response to <BR>>> > the<BR>>> > sole Council
member who wasn't comfortable giving carte blanche in <BR>>> >
the form<BR>>> > of an open checkbook to defend the attempt to *not*
comply with <BR>>> > Idaho Public<BR>>> > Records
Law. Clearly, the expectation of professional conduct in
<BR>>> > conducting<BR>>> > public business is far and above
Weber's abilities.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > The fact of the matter is
that if they were willing to turn over the <BR>>> >
items<BR>>> > that are, by definition, part of the public record, there
would be <BR>>> > no need<BR>>> > for *us* to pay for
private legal counsel for them. It will be <BR>>> >
interesting<BR>>> > to see what attorneys are going to benefit from
this public financial<BR>>> > windfall.<BR>>> ><BR>>>
> And, of course, all of this could have been easily avoided had they
<BR>>> > simply<BR>>> > used City-supplied email accounts
rather than trying to hide things <BR>>> > from<BR>>> >
public view for a personal "pet project" that a clear majority of
<BR>>> > tax payers<BR>>> > don't support. The City has
been well aware for quite a long time <BR>>> > of the<BR>>>
> specific problems with "private" email accounts being used to
<BR>>> > conduct City<BR>>> > business, yet they've chosen to
take the path of least resistance, <BR>>> > which is<BR>>>
> now costing us Real Money, not to mention eroding public
confidence.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Not surprisingly, both Council
members who are trying to avoid with<BR>>> > complying with Idaho's
Public Records Laws were GMA candidates. If <BR>>> >
nothing<BR>>> > else, the actions of these two Council members make
clear that GMA is<BR>>> > heavily invested in continuing the good ol'
boy network that <BR>>> > absolutely<BR>>> > hasn't
served our community well.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Coupled with the
changes in fees they also approved tonight to make <BR>>> >
getting<BR>>> > public records more expensive for us, it's clear this
current council<BR>>> > doesn't give a rip about transparency or
accountability. It's all <BR>>> > about the<BR>>>
> good ol' boy network being alive and well here to continue to allow
<BR>>> > public<BR>>> > business to be conducted out of public
view, and they ought to be <BR>>> > ashamed.<BR>>>
><BR>>> > So, here's the real test of those who turned out for local
Tea <BR>>> > Parties: do<BR>>> > you really care
about the issues you protested? If so, you have an<BR>>> >
obligation to protest this blatant waste of ***our*** scarce local
<BR>>> > taxpayer<BR>>> > funds. If you can't make a
difference locally -- in your home town <BR>>> > --
then<BR>>> > your efforts at the bigger picture are meaningless.
So, let's just <BR>>> > see how<BR>>> > genuine your
concerns really are. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath<BR>>> >
because looking at the GMA leadership, it doesn't take a genius to
<BR>>> > see that<BR>>> > those involved are totally hooked
into old ideas of leadership that <BR>>> > have<BR>>> >
historically failed to serve our community well.<BR>>> ><BR>>>
> And, to John Weber: you're the one who clearly has no interest
in<BR>>> > generating goodwill when you are oh, so willing to waste the
hard- <BR>>> > earned<BR>>> > taxpayer dollars you take from
us to advance your personal special<BR>>> > interests. You
perceive that your buddies are "under attack" simply <BR>>> >
because<BR>>> > a member of the public understands Idaho Public Record
Law. How <BR>>> > about you<BR>>> > taking the
time to inform yourself -- there's really nothing <BR>>> >
complicated<BR>>> > about the issue -- before you go off half-cocked
yet again? Give us <BR>>> > all a<BR>>> > breath
of fresh by showing you have the *ability* to actually <BR>>> >
understand the<BR>>> > issues that come before you -- there are a great
many of us who <BR>>> > continue to<BR>>> > wait . . .
and wait. . . and wait for that glimmer of actual <BR>>> >
understanding<BR>>> > rather than your knee-jerk responses to "defend"
your personal <BR>>> > buddies at<BR>>> > the expense of
the clear spirit and intent of Idaho's Public Records <BR>>> >
Laws.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Basically, I'm of the opinion that if
we-the-people don't *demand*<BR>>> > transparency and accountability in
our own community, it's foolhardy <BR>>> > to<BR>>> >
think we'll ever get it at the state or federal level. And, sadly,
<BR>>> > the<BR>>> > actions of our Council tonight is a great
example of that truism.<BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>> >
Disgusted,<BR>>> > Saundra Lund<BR>>> > Moscow, ID<BR>>>
><BR>>> > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for
good people <BR>>> > to do<BR>>> > nothing.<BR>>>
> ~ Edmund Burke<BR>>> ><BR>>> > ***** Original material
contained herein is Copyright 2009 through <BR>>> > life
plus<BR>>> > 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward,
excerpt, or reproduce <BR>>> > outside<BR>>> > the
Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the<BR>>> >
author.*****<BR>>> ><BR>>> >
=======================================================<BR>>> > List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> > serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>
>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>>
> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>> >
=======================================================<BR>>> <BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
<BR>>>
</FONT><A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>
=======================================================<BR>>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
---------------------------------------------<BR>> This message was sent by
First Step
Internet.<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.com/"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.com/</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> <BR>>
<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
=======================================================</FONT>
<P></P><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<HR>
</FONT>
<P></P><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - </FONT><A href="http://www.avg.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>www.avg.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> <BR>Version:
8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09
08:30:00<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>