<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Paul,<br><br>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.<br><br>Sunil<br><br>> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:53:31 -0700<br>> From: godshatter@yahoo.com<br>> To: sslund_2007@verizon.net<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level<br>> <br>> Saundra,<br>> <br>> Thank you for the information. I know more about what we're talking <br>> about, now. I'd been assuming that they had accounts on some city email <br>> server or something. I don't know the law in Moscow or Idaho about this, <br>> but if there isn't a specific law to treat all work-related emails as <br>> official documents, then there sure should be. If the potential of <br>> having personal emails disclosed accidentally is a concern, they could <br>> always get another account themselves that they use strictly for <br>> council-related business. Better yet would be to have a <br>> City-administered server and the accounts created there.<br>> <br>> I had originally thought it was a similar situation to what Sarah Palin <br>> was involved in, but it's even worse. They don't have the two accounts <br>> to confuse - it's all on their personal accounts.<br>> <br>> Paul<br>> <br>> Saundra Lund wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Gary Crabtree wrote:<br>> ><br>> > “A question that leaps to mind would have to be, WAS any city business <br>> > conducted via private e-mail or is this simply a great big fishing <br>> > expedition/harassment technique conducted by someone who is'nt a <br>> > resident of the city of Moscow and who harbors resentment that his <br>> > treasured MCA council members were shown the door in such a <br>> > overwhelming manner? Is it "city business" every time the topic of <br>> > water is mentioned in a private E-mail? Once I hear an unbiased answer <br>> > to these questions it will be easier to have an opinion.”<br>> ><br>> > I considered whether or not to respond since Mr. Crabtree certainly <br>> > doesn’t consider me “unbiased,” so he’ll be inclined to find some lame <br>> > excuse to discount my response and to vomit more invective in my <br>> > direction.<br>> ><br>> > However, since this is something others may legitimately wonder (Wayne <br>> > Price seemed to be asking something similar, and I see Paul Rumelhart <br>> > has posted), I’ll answer J<br>> ><br>> > First, consider that the email addys given on the City’s Web site for <br>> > some Council members *are* their “private,” rather than City, email <br>> > addys. So, absent any specific examples, it’s a pretty sure bet that <br>> > city business is being conducted through those “private” email addys – <br>> > I sincerely doubt I’m the only one who has contacted council members <br>> > in this manner. This is something anyone is free to verify for themselves:<br>> ><br>> > “(Note: to email all Council members you may use the link on the <br>> > bottom of this page)”<br>> ><br>> > http://www.ci.moscow.id.us/council/MeetCouncil.asp<br>> ><br>> > Clicking on the line provides the following:<br>> ><br>> > blambert@ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:blambert@ci.moscow.id.us>; <br>> > dcarscallen@ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:dcarscallen@ci.moscow.id.us>; <br>> > jweber@moscow.com <mailto:jweber@moscow.com>; tlamar@moscow.com <br>> > <mailto:tlamar@moscow.com>; wmsteed@aol.com <mailto:wmsteed@aol.com>; <br>> > wkrauss@ci.moscow.id.us <mailto:wkrauss@ci.moscow.id.us><br>> ><br>> > Second, I personally have contacted council members regarding City <br>> > business via the email addys provided on the City Web site, and I’ve <br>> > received email responses discussing City business from the “private” <br>> > email addys of Council members. An exception would be John Weber: in <br>> > the time since his election, I don’t think he’s learned to use email <br>> > as he stated he would do since *every single time* I’ve tried to <br>> > contact him, I get a delivery failure notice (522 5.0.0 User mailbox <br>> > size is over quota). <shaking my head><br>> ><br>> > Third, there are quite a few examples of Visionaries contacting <br>> > Council members via email (using the email addys provided by the City <br>> > Web site) about City business right in the V2020 archives J Since Mr. <br>> > Crabtree will use any contrived excuse to discount my personal reports <br>> > to defend his buddies, here’s an example from someone else:<br>> ><br>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-January/060475.html<br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com <br>> > [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] On Behalf Of Bev Bafus<br>> > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:49 PM<br>> > To: blambert@ci.moscow.id.us; dcarscallen@ci.moscow.id.us; <br>> > jweber@moscow.com; tlamar@moscow.com; wmsteed@aol.com; <br>> > wkrauss@ci.moscow.id.us; nchaney@ci.moscow.id.us<br>> > Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Snow problems<br>> ><br>> > Fourth, I personally have received responses from Council members <br>> > using their “private” email addys to respond to inquiries from me <br>> > regarding city business. Here’s a recent example (header only), <br>> > although, again, I’m sure this will fail to satisfy Mr. Crabtree:<br>> ><br>> > *From:* WMSteed@aol.com [mailto:WMSteed@aol.com]<br>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:51 PM<br>> > *To:* sslund_2007@verizon.net<br>> > *Subject:* Re: Rescind or End Motion & End the Taxpayers' Costs**<br>> ><br>> > Finally, there are plenty of examples in the V2020 archives of Council <br>> > members using their “private” email addys to respond to inquiries <br>> > discussing City business. I’m not going to do any more of Mr. <br>> > Crabtree’s work for him, but I personally verified at least two <br>> > instances from current Council members.<br>> ><br>> > So, no, Mr. Crabtree: unlike the “fishing expedition” public record <br>> > requests submitted by your Kirk cronies, there’s ample evidence that <br>> > some Council members are using their “private” email addys to conduct <br>> > City business. Those emails absolutely are covered by Idaho Public <br>> > Records law, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we-the-taxpayers are <br>> > on the financial hook to the tune of at least $5000 because some <br>> > Council members seem to suffer from serious ethical challenge with <br>> > respect to complying with Idaho Public Records law, law that’s in <br>> > place to protect we-the-people.<br>> ><br>> > For those who are interested in learning more, the AG’s office has a <br>> > pretty nifty booklet that explains Idaho Public Records law:<br>> ><br>> > http://www2.state.id.us/ag/manuals/publicrecords.pdf<br>> ><br>> > From AG Wasden’s introduction:<br>> ><br>> > “Open government is the cornerstone of a free society. The Idaho <br>> > Legislature affirmed Idaho’s commitment to open government by enacting <br>> > the Idaho Public Records Law in 1990. The Public Records Law protects <br>> > each citizen’s right to monitor the actions of state and local <br>> > government entities by providing access to governmental records.”<br>> ><br>> > As those who take the time to become familiar with Idaho Public <br>> > Records law know, it’s certainly not rocket science to understand the <br>> > stuff! No, email correspondence isn’t specifically addressed, but as <br>> > our resident journalist Kai explained:<br>> ><br>> > “Any correspondence regarding public business, with a few exceptions, <br>> > is a matter of public record. It doesn't matter if they were sent from <br>> > a private email account, they must be allowed to be seen by the public <br>> > at will.<br>> ><br>> > Public business IS the public's business.”<br>> ><br>> > In 2005, AG Wasden had his deputy AGs tour the state giving workshops <br>> > about Idaho’s Open Meeting & Public Records laws – they were here July <br>> > 21, 2005. I attended, and our local governments were amply <br>> > represented, which makes it all the more concerning that our public <br>> > officials are having difficulty with the concept and with compliance. <br>> > That “difficulty” or seemingly blatant unwillingness to comply is now <br>> > costing *us* money.<br>> ><br>> > And, I have to comment that those very Council members who were the <br>> > biggest whiners about the costs of fighting the Great Water Give-Away <br>> > to Hawkins have absolutely no problem throwing money to each other <br>> > hand over fist to fight complying with a law that’s supposed to <br>> > protect us from government! What’s with that?! They are, I think, <br>> > excellent examples of elected officials who don’t want transparency in <br>> > government . . . people who are stuck in the past and people who are <br>> > seemingly not up to the ethical requirements of public service.<br>> ><br>> > Another excuse made last night was the “difficulty” Wayne Fox’s <br>> > requests present because they go back to when Steed & Krauss took <br>> > office. Well, HELLLLOOOO! Had Krauss & Steed been regularly turning <br>> > over emails dealing with public business sent to & from their <br>> > “private” email accounts, this would be a non-issue. The fault is not <br>> > with Wayne Fox’s requests, but rather with the failure of council <br>> > members to comply with Idaho Public Records law, and to imply <br>> > otherwise is offensive in the extreme. Yet, the Council members opted <br>> > to use these public records requests as an “excuse” to further <br>> > financially gouge those seeking access to public records!<br>> ><br>> > A skeptical person might wonder why these particular requests were <br>> > used to jack up rates when previous “fishing expedition” public <br>> > records requests were completed with a smile.<br>> ><br>> > Finally, Gary Crabtree wrote:<br>> ><br>> > “Don't get me wrong, any unnessacary spending is to be avoided but I <br>> > have yet to hear any evidence that would justify forcing council <br>> > members to give access to private communications to comply with what <br>> > may well be a frivolous or unlawfull request.”<br>> ><br>> > Given Mr. Crabtree’s obvious animosity towards me, I don’t expect any <br>> > of this will satisfy him and cause him to rebuke his pals or object to <br>> > this clear waste of taxpayer money. I’m sure he’s still heartbroken <br>> > that his heroine Sarah Palin was caught violating the same idea of <br>> > public records.<br>> ><br>> > However, for others with questions who have managed to read this far, <br>> > I hope this helps.<br>> ><br>> > Saundra Lund<br>> ><br>> > Moscow, ID<br>> ><br>> > The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to <br>> > do nothing.<br>> ><br>> > ~ Edmund Burke<br>> ><br>> > ****** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through <br>> > life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or <br>> > reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written <br>> > permission of the author.******<br>> ><br>> > *From:* a [mailto:smith@turbonet.com]<br>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:02 PM<br>> > *To:* Joe Campbell; Saundra Lund; vision2020@moscow.com; bear@moscow.com<br>> > *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level<br>> ><br>> > A question that leaps to mind would have to be, WAS any city business <br>> > conducted via private e-mail or is this simply a great big fishing <br>> > expedition/harassment technique conducted by someone who is'nt a <br>> > resident of the city of Moscow and who harbors resentment that his <br>> > treasured MCA council members were shown the door in such a <br>> > overwhelming manner? Is it "city business" every time the topic of <br>> > water is mentioned in a private E-mail? Once I hear an unbiased answer <br>> > to these questions it will be easier to have an opinion. It's a little <br>> > hard to get overly exersized over spending $2500.00 in funds allready <br>> > budgeted for situations precisely like this. Don't get me wrong, any <br>> > unnessacary spending is to be avoided but I have yet to hear any <br>> > evidence that would justify forcing council members to give access to <br>> > private communications to comply with what may well be a frivolous or <br>> > unlawfull request.<br>> ><br>> > g<br>> ><br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> ><br>> > From: <bear@moscow.com <mailto:bear@moscow.com>><br>> ><br>> > To: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com <br>> > <mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com>>; "Saundra Lund" <br>> > <sslund_2007@verizon.net <mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net>>; <br>> > <vision2020@moscow.com <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>><br>> ><br>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:11 AM<br>> ><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wasted Money: City Level<br>> ><br>> > > Hi Joe,<br>> > ><br>> > > I'm not a "teabager" in any sense of the definition, but I am going <br>> > to jump in on this<br>> > > one.<br>> > ><br>> > > First, the role of the City Attorney, based on the Functions and <br>> > Mission Statement that<br>> > > they<br>> > > have published are:<br>> > > Function:<br>> > > The City Attorney is the primary legal counsel for the City Council, <br>> > Boards and<br>> > > Commissions,<br>> > > the City Supervisor, City Departments, officers and employees. The <br>> > City Attorney provides<br>> > > legal<br>> > > representation and advises City officials on all legal matters <br>> > involving the City,<br>> > > including land<br>> > > use, personnel, contracts, real property transactions, elections, and <br>> > re-development. The<br>> > > City<br>> > > Attorney represents the City in state and federal court, oversees <br>> > 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, <br>> > Council and City<br>> > > Departments<br>> > > with minimal use of outside assistance of counsel so that the <br>> > 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 <br>> > 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 <br>> > logical question in<br>> > > regards to the issue at hand, which as I read it is if city council <br>> > members use private<br>> > > emails to<br>> > > conduct city business, should those records of city business be <br>> > accessible to the public<br>> > > under The Idaho Public Records Law; AND if there is a question as to <br>> > 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 <br>> > violate a state law. DID<br>> > > they go<br>> > > to and ask that legal counsel for advice BEFORE they acted? IF they <br>> > 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 <br>> > advice before they act,<br>> > > and they<br>> > > have a city provided e-mail address with which to conduct city <br>> > 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 <br>> > 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 <br>> > they acted? This would<br>> > ><br>> > > question if they understand the functions of the City Attorney or <br>> > understand their jobs as<br>> > > city<br>> > > councilors.<br>> > ><br>> > > 2) Did they get advice from the City Attorney, did they take it? IF <br>> > they took it, no<br>> > > matter what<br>> > > that legal advice was, the City Attorney should be representing them, <br>> > not private legal<br>> > > counsel.<br>> > ><br>> > > 3) If the City Attorney told them it was not legal to conduct city <br>> > business and they<br>> > > ignored that<br>> > > advice, then they are on the hook for their own legal bills, not the <br>> > citizens of the City<br>> > > of<br>> > > moscow.<br>> > ><br>> > > 4) IF they did in fact. violate the Idaho Public Records Law by using <br>> > a private computer<br>> > > address<br>> > > to conduct city business, it questions their abilities and ethics, <br>> > 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>> ><br>> > >> On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:38 AM, "Saundra Lund" <br>> > <sslund_2007@verizon.net <mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net>><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>> > >> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> > >> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > >> > =======================================================<br>> > >><br>> > >> =======================================================<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>> > >> =======================================================<br>> > >><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > ---------------------------------------------<br>> > > This message was sent by First Step Internet.<br>> > > http://www.fsr.com/<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > =======================================================<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>> > > =======================================================<br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > No virus found in this incoming message.<br>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com><br>> > Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: <br>> > 04/21/09 08:30:00<br>> ><br>> <br>> <br>> =======================================================<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>> =======================================================<br></body>
</html>