<!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 6.00.6001.18226" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Public business IS the public's
business.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=smith@turbonet.com href="mailto:smith@turbonet.com">a</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A> ; <A
title=sslund_2007@verizon.net href="mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net">Saundra
Lund</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=bear@moscow.com href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money:
City Level</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>