Remember the precast concrete structure the City just had to have in place in City Park by the big summer events like Car d’Lane, Ironman, 4th of July parade and festival, and Art on the Green? Normal planning and procurement processes be damned! The public safety depends on it! Look closely at this picture taken on July 21. Don’t see it? Hmmm. Well, the LCDC’s Tony Berns says it’s “still viable.”
Some months ago we did a series of posts about this wasteful and unnecessary project. Parts 1 through 5 of the “Toilet Not Included” series will bring you up to speed.
On June 18 I sent an email to Parks Director Doug Eastwood asking when it would be installed and explaining I would like to photograph the rather elaborate installation process. No answer. So on July 8 I sent Eastwood another email asking if the project had been cancelled and if not, when would it be installed. No answer. On July 12 I sent an email to the Coeur d’Alene Police Department’s information email address asking if the bunker project had been abandoned and if not, when it woud be emplaced. No anwer.
No problem. On July 15, 2008, the City received my Idaho Public Records Law request asking to examine all writings on this project since the City Council approved it on March 18, 2008. City Clerk Susan Weathers replied to my request in a letter dated July 17, 2008. (Warning: Do not have any beverage in your mouth when you follow the link to her letter.)
It occurred to me that because our urban renewal agency, the Lake City Development Corporation or LCDC, had voted on March 19, 2008, to fund this project and correct the horrendous blight of manicured grass, plants, flowers, and trees shown in the City Park picture above, it may have some correspondence. So, I did a public records request to Tony Berns. He replied in a letter dated July 21, 2008.
The last sentence of Berns’ letter reads, “It is my understanding that the downtown park public safety building initiative is still viable, although a bit behind the desired/anticipated project schedule.” I think he was trying to say, “It’s behind schedule, but it will still get done.”
Though I never received a reply from Eastwood, the minutes of the July 14, 2008, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes read, “Chairman Shellman asked about the status of police/fire CXT building. Doug (Eastwood) replied that we are waiting on the CXT Company at this time.”
According to the Coeur d’Alene Press story on July 18 titled City’s budget outlook grim, the City doesn’t have the money to hire any of the three new police patrol officers, five new detectives, or three new firefighters it said it needs. Yet in March the City’s finance director and police chief pushed urgently for $50,000 to $60,000 to get a concrete bunker measuring about 14 feet deep by 26 feet wide in City Park, a bunker that will usually be locked and unoccupied. Go figure.
Bill, did you get a bill for the time that it took the staff to determine how much time it would take them to complete your public information request? That detailed evaluation of time allocation had to have taken several qualified staffers at least an hour to figure all that out and certainly that must not be free. Then there’s the cost of the letterhead stationery, the ink and the postage. I’d guess that you’re into this for at least $50.00.
Comment by Wallypog — July 24, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
I’m not sure I have an issue with the idea of charging for staff hours and copies on a public information request, although I think that over 300 is a little high. When I lived in Colorado for a brief period I requested information on a restoration project of the City Hall and it turned out to be over 400 pages, and they charged me about 40 bucks, and I was okay with that because some of the documentation was from the early 1900’s, but over 300 for information that only dates back to March is a bit high. One would think that the IT dept at the city would easily be able to archive that infomation so that it did not take a large amount of staff hours to retrieve. Even at $20 an hour that is still 15 hours to retrieve all of the info and that seems a little excesive.
Comment by patrickh — July 24, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Wallypog and patrickh,
I got a good laugh out of the City’s response. All Doug Eastwood or the PD had to do was respond to the emails I sent them asking when it was going to be put in place. If the City had responded with a reasonable answer, my public record request would never have been sent, because it would have been unnecessary.
An agency may establish a copying fee which “may not exceed the actual cost to the agency of copying the record…”
Agencies may establish a fee to recover such labor costs for voluminious or complex requests, or requests that involve locating archival information.
In addition, if an agency must incur additional expense to provide access to records during other than normal working hours, or requires the services of outside contract copying companies, or overtime on the part of its own employees, the agency may require advance payment to compensate for this additional expense.
With this particular request, the City is asking for advance payment even though none of the conditions in the preceding paragraph apply.
More important, this is an “active” project. The information I requested has not been archived. According to documentary information I received earlier from the City, the City has a project officer. I am certain that project officer has a file with copies of every piece of information relating to this project.
Comment by Bill — July 24, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
My God – I swear, some clerks are just plain idiots. They are begging for a lawsuit. Thanks for warning me not to have anything in my mouth.
Exactly, if people would not ignore you – one would not have to use the Idaho Public Records Law.
This is a perfect examples of why Senate Bill 1300 needs to go through. I actually contacted:
Name: Roger Falen
Phone: 208-285-1116
516 N. Laurel
Genesee, Idaho 83832
He is a looking for support when he reintroduces this bill. In a case like this – looks like you could have handed it over to the AG’s office for enforcement if this bill were law just because it appears they unreasonably threw it back in your face with excessive conditions. That is so awful.
“Viable”? That is even worse. Make no mistake these people know what they are doing and laughing while they say, “No” because they can.
You should sue them in District Court and start building a public record of this government abuse.
Comment by Stebbijo — July 24, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Stebbijo,
I was laughing so hard at her response, I couldn’t get upset. The best comedy script writers in the world couldn’t write funnier stuff than comes out of Coeur d’Alene City Hall.
For example, the 9.28 hours. Read it this way: The City of Coeur d’Alene estimates it will require 9 hours, 16, minutes, 48 seconds at a cost of $355.99. The City can (if you believe this was a serious and honest response to my request) estimate the cost of a task with precision down to the second, yet it’s unable to avoid the problems listed in the news article linked in my post. Ya gotta laugh at the buffoonery of the Mullan Avenue Gang.
Comment by Bill — July 24, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Well, I guess it works to have stupid clerks. In my mess to correct a defaming public record I have two affidavits, one from the county clerk and the magistrate clerk of Bonner County, stating that records can only be sealed via an order of the court. Then they (the clerks) sealed a record(s) without one. I have not seen one yet and I requested it. Then when I went to look at the file, the document she (magistrate clerk) said she sealed in her affidavit was not – so she sealed it in front of me. The act of sealing is tearing the tape carefully from the manila envelope then inserting a document into it – then pound with some extra added force and hope the same tape still sticks. Really, I watched her.
Maybe they are waiting for me to draft the order – I just thought of that. I used the wrong year of the ICAR’s in a recent motion so I have to amend it – maybe I will draft the order and see if it gets signed when I refile. Would that not be a kicker?
Nothing shocks me anymore, and I guess you are right to look at it as comical – it’s a coping stategy for sure but I would rather sue – that is my idea of fun.
Comment by Stebbijo — July 24, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
It’s simple. They held a few meetings. It was decided, and most likely at the top-most levels, that the City doesn’t want you to have the information. They estimated the time based on a formula, then tossed the number out assuming that you would merely back down. It’s tacky, and it shows the arrogance of some officials and their continued efforts to keep local government closed. So, Bill, they helped you prove your point.
Comment by Dan — July 24, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Dan,
That’s why I was laughing.
Comment by Bill — July 25, 2008 @ 6:30 am
What do you think it cost the city to hold those meetings to decide how to handle your request? What is the deal with Tony Berns indicating a copy of the letter to Armbruster? This is a simple request for documentation involving a simple structure (albeit an expensive albatross.) The prevailing attitude is galling.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 25, 2008 @ 6:47 am
Susie,
When my simple questions emailed to Eastwood and the PD weren’t answered, my records request was for all writings since March 18, 2008. Since all of the foundational documents had already been supplied earlier, I expected my most recent request to reveal one or two pieces of correspondence finalizing and placing the order or canceling the project.
The City’s most recent response is a preemptive effort to discourage public records requests. That result would have been achieved if the City had just told Eastwood or the Police Department’s Community Relations Officer to answer my emails.
Armbruster is the LCDC’s attorney in Boise. He may have asked Berns to send him copies of all replies to IPRL requests to ensure Berns is fully complying with the law.
Comment by Bill — July 25, 2008 @ 7:18 am
Bill,
Dan is correct. It is a scare tactic to encourage you to go away. I have seen it before. Than the City Attorney pulls any document that may cause a problem for staff.
Comment by LTR — July 25, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
LTR,
I’m quite aware of the tactic. It was used with an earlier request I had made for the data obtained from the Oregon consultant’s “study” of community’s satisfaction with the police department. Every time they pull it, their action reveals what they wish to conceal.
I wouldn’t call it a scare tactic as much as an impediment. People see it for what it is.
As for pulling documents, they weren’t quite quick enough in Sunshine Meadows.
Comment by Bill — July 26, 2008 @ 6:57 am