Butler Clueless!!??: City "Unable to Indentify" Records Re: Potential Purchasers and Developers for Hospital Site!!???

[Brian Essi]

So Butler claims that he and the city are clueless as to whereabouts of records regarding Lakewood's Planning and Development leaders communicating with any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site.

He says they don't organize records that way--Huh?

So does that mean that there are no potential purchasers and/or developers for the Hospital Site?

Butler had 2 months to come up the city's excuse (below).

He says the request was too vague.

Huh?

Where are these records?

Are there any records?

Is someone hiding the records?

Hmmm



From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 12:32 AM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:

In No. 196 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – to or from Dru Siley and any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site January 1, 2013, through the date of the response.”

In No. 198 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – to or from Bryce Sylvester and any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site January 1, 2013, through the date of the response.”

Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to these requests. State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989). The city does not organize records based on whether they are to or from potential purchasers or developers of land.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994). Because these records requests fall within the description of improper requests under the foregoing law, to that extent they are denied.

This completes our response to the foregoing requests.

Best wishes,

Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034

[Bridget Conant]

Remarkable.

The mayor and Build Lakewood repeatedly stated, and it can be documented, that "national developers" were interested in the hospital parcel.

If that were true, there must have been some communication between these mysterious developers and the city. Would not they have contacted the mayor or the planning director Dru Siley? If so, there must be a record of that.

This implies to me that there is a lie. Is it a LIE that national developers contacted the city over the hospital site? Or, is it a LIE that the city has no public records in response to the request?

[Lori Allen _]

Liar, liar, pants on fire! Typical!

[cmager]

Mr. Essi, for some reason I chuckle at Mr. Butler's closing salutation of "Best wishes"...

[Meg Ostrowski]

So Butler claims that he and the city are clueless as to whereabouts of records regarding Lakewood's Planning and Development leaders communicating with any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site.

He says they don't organize records that way--Huh?

So does that mean that there are no potential purchasers and/or developers for the Hospital Site?

Butler had 2 months to come up the city's excuse (below).

He says the request was too vague.

Huh?

Where are these records?

Are there any records?

Is someone hiding the records?

Hmmm



From: "Butler, Kevin" <Kevin.Butler@lakewoodoh.net>
To: 'Brian Essi'
Cc: "Petrus, Jeannine" <Jeannine.Petrus@lakewoodoh.net>; "Strachan, Shannon" <Shannon.Strachan@lakewoodoh.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 12:32 AM
Subject: RE: Public Records Requests --PRR1 to PRR 173

Mr. Essi:

In No. 196 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – to or from Dru Siley and any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site January 1, 2013, through the date of the response.”

In No. 198 of your May 13, 2016 public records request, you ask for “All correspondence and communications – electronic or otherwise – to or from Bryce Sylvester and any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site January 1, 2013, through the date of the response.”

Based on the manner in which the City ordinarily maintains and access the public records it keeps, it was unable to identify records responsive to these requests. State ex rel Dehler v. Spatny, 127 Ohio St.3d 312, 2010-Ohio-5711; State ex rel. Morgan v. Strickland, 121 Ohio St.3d 600, 2009-Ohio-1901; State ex rel. Zauderer v. Joseph, 62 Ohio App.3d 752 (10th Dist. 1989). The city does not organize records based on whether they are to or from potential purchasers or developers of land.

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a public records request must describe the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and not be overly broad and ambiguous. State ex rel. Morgan v. New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-6365, ¶29, quoting State ex rel. Fant v. Tober, 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Furthermore, a governmental office has no duty to “seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester.” Fant, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2591 at *4 (8th Dist. Apr. 28, 1993); aff’d 68 Ohio St.3d 117 (1993). Finally, a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information. State ex rel. Thomas v. Ohio State University, 71 Ohio St.3d 245 (1994). Because these records requests fall within the description of improper requests under the foregoing law, to that extent they are denied.

This completes our response to the foregoing requests.

Best wishes,

Kevin M. Butler, Director of Law
City of Lakewood | Law Department
(216) 529-6034

I watched this video.



I read this policy.

http://www.onelakewood.com/pdf/Lakewood ... Policy.pdf

I requested this document and received it within minutes.

Lakewood Records Retention Schedules.pdf

(3.05 MiB) Downloaded 148 times

As someone who values history, I find the retention periods insufficient, particularly for correspondence which is often the most interesting, revealing and valuable when conducting research.

In his response to your requests, Mr. Butler does not claim individually or on behalf of the city to be “clueless as to the whereabouts of records regarding Lakewood's Planning and Development leaders communicating with any potential purchaser and/or developer of the Lakewood Hospital site.” He simply stated the city was “unable to identify” the requested records as “the city does not organize records based on whether they are to or from potential purchasers or developers of land.”

I think you did a fine job describing the records desired with reasonable and sufficient clarity and were not overly broad and/or ambiguous. If the city wanted to cooperate and invest the manpower locating the records you’ve requested, I feel certain they could do so. But apparently “a governmental office has no duty to seek out and retrieve those records which would contain the information of interest to the requester” and “a public office is under no obligation to search for records containing selected information.” If you were able to identify the potential developers/purchasers by name, I suppose it would make the job easier. But assuming that is exactly the information you are seeking, I understand you can broaden your request (at the risk of being denied on those grounds) and fish for yourself.

Have you ever offered or been invited to inspect/review records in person?

All of this makes me wonder if the city is stonewalling due to animosity, a lack of staff, a lack of transparency or all of the above.

[Brian Essi]

Meg,

Thanks for your thoughts. I won’t comment on the law Butler cites--the post was to report the facts and pose some questions for public discussion.

However, from a factual standpoint, may I suggest there is little distinction between reporting that Butler claims to be “clueless as to the whereabouts” and claims to be “unable to indentify” records. What he "claims" to be the case is not necessarily "factual," but it is a fact that he made the claim.

I think it is highly likely that Butler has been, is and will continue to be "in the loop" on the details any potential purchasers and/or developers of the Hospital site--if there are any.

How difficult would it have been for Butler to walk down to the Planning Department and say, "Hey Dru & Bryce, gather up the emails and letters we have concerning the prospects for the hospital site development"?

Of course, that presumes there are if fact any potential purchasers and/or developers.

Two points of the record requests were to discover if there are in fact any such entities and, if so, the names of those entities.

May I suggest further that our city leadership and its records custodian understood exactly what I was asking for and refused to comply with that and over 100 other records requests.

So Meg---You asked:

Stonewalling?
Animosity?
Lack of transparency?
All of the above?

You could add another question:

So if a public official has actual knowledge of the identities and details of the communications with these entities (or that no such entities and communications exist) and they are aware of the records request, is it an intentional and willful violation of sworn duties to up hold the law and the public office that holds by refusing to comply with a simple records request?

[Lori Allen _]

I recall a few months ago seeing a Shred-It truck driving down Detroit on several occasions. Hmmm, could there be something behind this? Mr. Jing-a -ling,aka Butler, appears to have a selective memory. Maybe he needs to be checked out at CCF, "dumb ass care", for Dementia.

[m buckley]

Meg,

Thanks for your thoughts. I won’t comment on the law Butler cites--the post was to report the facts and pose some questions for public discussion.

However, from a factual standpoint, may I suggest there is little distinction between reporting that Butler claims to be “clueless as to the whereabouts” and claims to be “unable to indentify” records. What he "claims" to be the case is not necessarily "factual," but it is a fact that he made the claim.

I think it is highly likely that Butler has been, is and will continue to be "in the loop" on the details any potential purchasers and/or developers of the Hospital site--if there are any.

How difficult would it have been for Butler to walk down to the Planning Department and say, "Hey Dru & Bryce, gather up the emails and letters we have concerning the prospects for the hospital site development"?

Of course, that presumes there are if fact any potential purchasers and/or developers.

Two points of the record requests were to discover if there are in fact any such entities and, if so, the names of those entities.

May I suggest further that our city leadership and its records custodian understood exactly what I was asking for and refused to comply with that and over 100 other records requests.

So Meg---You asked:

Stonewalling?
Animosity?
Lack of transparency?
All of the above?

You could add another question:

So if a public official has actual knowledge of the identities and details of the communications with these entities (or that no such entities and communications exist) and they are aware of the records request, is it an intentional and willful violation of sworn duties to up hold the law and the public office that holds by refusing to comply with a simple records request?

The very idea of the Law Director of Lakewood stonewalling the truth, delaying, evading public record requests, is sickening in it's arrogance. Naked in it's lack of transparency and yet all too intrinsic to the very nature of the Summers' administration. When is enough going to be enough?

[Lori Allen _]

Maybe there aren't any records because Lord and Company have stuck to Lord's plan for a wreck center. I bet the membership will be costly. This way, it will exclude the majority of the folks in Lakewood. Lord can then have a semi-private wreck center. I am sure the developer will be putting in a string of bars also!

[Lori Allen _]

Let's not forget that another apparent member of Lord's Company, David Stein, was rumoured to want to put in a hotel and boutiques. I believe the hotel would have a 24 hour bar and maybe a pants store!

[Lori Allen _]

Maybe soccer fields at Brian Power's request, and if we are lucky, more solstice steps. Lord seems to feel that his steps were a great accomplishment.

[Meg Ostrowski]

However, from a factual standpoint, may I suggest there is little distinction between reporting that Butler claims to be “clueless as to the whereabouts” and claims to be “unable to indentify” records. What he "claims" to be the case is not necessarily "factual," but it is a fact that he made the claim.

I agree there is little distinction and a claim was made.

I think it is highly likely that Butler has been, is and will continue to be "in the loop" on the details of any potential purchasers and/or developers of the Hospital site--if there are any.

I think so too.

How difficult would it have been for Butler to walk down to the Planning Department and say, "Hey Dru & Bryce, gather up the emails and letters we have concerning the prospects for the hospital site development"?

Not difficult at all.

May I suggest further that our city leadership and its records custodian understood exactly what I was asking for and refused to comply with that and over 100 other records requests.

Regarding record requests No. 196 & No. 198, I believe our records custodian understood exactly what you were asking for, chose not to cooperate and cited cases to justify his refusal. I don't know about the other 100+ requests.

So Meg---You asked:

Stonewalling?
Animosity?
Lack of transparency?
All of the above?

You could add another question:

So if a public official has actual knowledge of the identities and details of the communications with these entities (or that no such entities and communications exist) and they are aware of the records request, is it an intentional and willful violation of sworn duties to up hold the law and the public office that holds by refusing to comply with a simple records request?

I'm no expert but perhaps.

[Lori Allen _]

Like I said before, most likely soccer fields, wreck center and a bar. If you feel that public records are being withheld from you, you may file a complaint at:

Attorney General for the State of Ohio
30 East Broad Street
14th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215

toll free telephone number 1-800-282-0515

There is also on-line live help during regular business hours.

[Brian Essi]

However, from a factual standpoint, may I suggest there is little distinction between reporting that Butler claims to be “clueless as to the whereabouts” and claims to be “unable to indentify” records. What he "claims" to be the case is not necessarily "factual," but it is a fact that he made the claim.

I agree there is little distinction and a claim was made.

I think it is highly likely that Butler has been, is and will continue to be "in the loop" on the details of any potential purchasers and/or developers of the Hospital site--if there are any.

I think so too.

How difficult would it have been for Butler to walk down to the Planning Department and say, "Hey Dru & Bryce, gather up the emails and letters we have concerning the prospects for the hospital site development"?

Not difficult at all.

May I suggest further that our city leadership and its records custodian understood exactly what I was asking for and refused to comply with that and over 100 other records requests.

Regarding record requests No. 196 & No. 198, I believe our records custodian understood exactly what you were asking for, chose not to cooperate and cited cases to justify his refusal. I don't know about the other 100+ requests.

So Meg---You asked:

Stonewalling?
Animosity?
Lack of transparency?
All of the above?

You could add another question:

So if a public official has actual knowledge of the identities and details of the communications with these entities (or that no such entities and communications exist) and they are aware of the records request, is it an intentional and willful violation of sworn duties to up hold the law and the public office that holds by refusing to comply with a simple records request?

I'm no expert but perhaps.

Butler and the city chose not to cooperate in the Attorney General mediation process that was initiated, so a complaint was filed concerning over 100 unanswered requests and/or denied or incomplete responses.

Then, when the due date of the city's answer to the complaint approached, Butler responded with over 40 emails--denying the majority of unanswered requests. In fact he denied 50 requests in just one email.

So I think it is fair to say the city has not been cooperative.

The public records requests and lawsuit are a matter of public record.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Butler and the city chose not to cooperate in the Attorney General mediation process that was initiated, so a complaint was filed concerning over 100 unanswered requests and/or denied or incomplete responses.

Then, when the due date of the city's answer to the complaint approached, Butler responded with over 40 emails--denying the majority of unanswered requests. In fact he denied 50 requests in just one email.

So that's it? No recourse?