The Observation Deck

It's pretty easy to see where City Council stands on transparency.
Cindy Marx (Lakewood's version of Brian J. Cummins) had her re-election fundraiser tonight.
Her host committee consists of all "The Usual Suspects"........Republican Mike Summers and the other members of Council.
I'm sure they drank, ate, and had some laughs....
That's all you need to know.

Michael Deneen wrote:It's pretty easy to see where City Council stands on transparency.
Cindy Marx (Lakewood's version of Brian J. Cummins) had her re-election fundraiser tonight.
Her host committee consists of all "The Usual Suspects"........Republican Mike Summers and the other members of Council.
I'm sure they drank, ate, and had some laughs....
That's all you need to know.

I agree that voting for one, is voting for all at this point. I can't imagine ever voting for any of the current at large members ever and for anything.

mjkuhns wrote:
... His position is that our city should be handling disclosure based on the question "do we absolutely have to keep this information classified," rather than "do we absolutely have to release this information." Unfortunately, I don't think there there can be any doubt at present that our custodian of records is employing the second test instead of the first.

So, Tristan is in favor of releasing documents when instructed to do so by a court, and in basically any case where there is no compelling requirement not to release them. We are actively looking into specific reforms to recommend, also, in addition to saying "I think this situation should change." I feel safe in saying that if he's on city council, he will back up the values of open government by introducing policies, which (if you approve of them) you can tell your other council members "please support this measure."

Meanwhile, thanks everyone for your patience with me as "campaign surrogate." I'm happy to say that we are preparing a number of upcoming events specifically for people to talk with Tristan about their priorities; I will certainly provide updates as we fix the details.

Hey Dan O'Malley-
Take a good look, that's what an answer to a direct question looks like.
That's what taking a position on an important issue looks like.
You've been shown up.
You should have answered the question.
Silence is cowardly. Silence is complicity.

And you've become part of the problem not part of the solution.

Hey Dan O'Malley-
Take a good look, that's what an answer to a direct question looks like.
That's what taking a position on an important issue looks like.
You've been shown up.
You should have answered the question.
Silence is cowardly. Silence is complicity.

Hey Ryan Nowlin

Hey Cindy Marx

Hey John Litten

Hey David Anderson

Hey Tom Bullocks

Hey Sam O'Leary

We need to come up with an Observation Deck litmus test for transparency. A series of questions, some yes/no, some ranked 1-10, with the results published with the candidate's bios in the print edition once we're closer to the election. What think?

Dan Alaimo wrote:We need to come up with an Observation Deck litmus test for transparency. A series of questions, some yes/no, some ranked 1-10, with the results published with the candidate's bios in the print edition once we're closer to the election. What think?

Dan

The Litmus for transparency is already in the books.

All records, files, documents, photos, emails, etc, are public, unless they are covered by between lawyer and client, HIPAA (patient and doctor), or open bidding.
(Strange side note, it is protected unless someone claims it in like a lawsuit)

Any email on a public computer is a public record, all computer usage of employees on public computers is of public record.

"Embarrassing emails" is not an excuse or the hundreds of pedophiles and stalkers would never be caught. "Oh you can't see that, it would embarrass me?"

This is why the court fight is so troubling.

Why are they fighting emails, and computer usage for public employees like Rick Uldricks and his good friend Colin McEwen?

Why fight a record that simple asks for how, Finance Director Jenn Pae came up with her numbers on various "facts."

Did Pasquale originate from a City Hall computer? Why not help in investigation those things?

Why the fight?

Council 2017 On has got to fight for transparency, and bring honesty back to city hall, and go back to representing the residents of Lakewood.

,

Hello Mark, I regret that I missed your many, many posts directed toward me, which someone alerted me to last evening. If you're sincere in wanting such an immediate answer, why not give me a call or send me an email to be sure I get your question? Here again is my email address and personal cell phone number: domalley@lakewoodoh.net, 440.552.7234.

Anyway, my response is that I of course support following public records laws and I also believe in erring on the side of sunshine in these matters. However I must say I disagree with the characterization above that the city's default position is to look for reasons to deny requests. Personally since joining council I have advocated for more transparency and accessibility of public records, and making them available in more usable digital formats. I plan to continue to propose changes to our public records practices to make information more accessible. I am not alone in this advocacy, either. If you think you're not being provided with information to which you're entitled, or have any other concern, just call me.

Dan O'Malley


You speak in generalities. So you still have not addressed the immediate issue.

The city is being SUED for withholding public records. The judges want them to release the records and show them the records they claim are confidential.

I guess they don't believe they are all really confidential, or should be.

What is your position on the current Records Keeper, Kevin Butler, refusing to turn over public record IN THIS CURRENT CASE?

Dan OMalley wrote:However I must say I disagree with the characterization above that the city's default position is to look for reasons to deny requests.

Hi Councilman,

I will step in only because you may be referring to my characterization:

our city should be handling disclosure based on the question "do we absolutely have to keep this information classified," rather than "do we absolutely have to release this information." Unfortunately, I don't think there there can be any doubt at present that our custodian of records is employing the second test instead of the first.

Possibly there is a semantics issue here; I'm not sure that "default position" is an entirely accurate description of circumstances at Lakewood city hall, and I would say that it wasn't entirely what I meant to argue. I wrote that "at present that our custodian of records is employing the second test," and I submit that the resort to that test is certainly more than a rare exception, but I can't say that it is a constant default in all circumstances.

That aside, our city is currently resisting, in court, more than 200 record requests. This particular battle has lasted most of a year, now, which of course follows the plaintiff's lengthy pursuit of those record requests before filing in court.

Given the whole nature of how legal professionals conduct research and make arguments, I do strongly suspect that resisting public records requests in court almost has to include looking for reasons to deny requests, at some point or other.

Hello Dan,
Kudos to whoever alerted you last night. Perhaps you could return the favor and alert the rest of your colleagues on city council, so that they could have the opportunity to give a direct answer to the question, "What is your position on the Records Keeper, Kevin Butler, refusing to turn over public records in the current case."

If you're sincere about answering that question, " What is your position on the Records Keeper, Kevin Butler, refusing to turn over public records in this current case., then why don't you just do it. Tell us where you stand.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:We need to come up with an Observation Deck litmus test for transparency. A series of questions, some yes/no, some ranked 1-10, with the results published with the candidate's bios in the print edition once we're closer to the election. What think?

Dan

The Litmus for transparency is already in the books.

All records, files, documents, photos, emails, etc, are public, unless they are covered by between lawyer and client, HIPAA (patient and doctor), or open bidding.
(Strange side note, it is protected unless someone claims it in like a lawsuit)

Any email on a public computer is a public record, all computer usage of employees on public computers is of public record.

"Embarrassing emails" is not an excuse or the hundreds of pedophiles and stalkers would never be caught. "Oh you can't see that, it would embarrass me?"

This is why the court fight is so troubling.

Why are they fighting emails, and computer usage for public employees like Rick Uldricks and his good friend Colin McEwen?

Why fight a record that simple asks for how, Finance Director Jenn Pae came up with her numbers on various "facts."

Did Pasquale originate from a City Hall computer? Why not help in investigation those things?

Why the fight?

Council 2017 On has got to fight for transparency, and bring honesty back to city hall, and go back to representing the residents of Lakewood.

,

Jim,
We're basically on the same page here. We shouldn't have to ask our council candidates if they want our city government to obey the law, but unfortunately we have to. We need to get all of them on the record saying so - or not - and make the answers known.
Dan

m buckley wrote:Hello Dan,
Kudos to whoever alerted you last night. Perhaps you could return the favor and alert the rest of your colleagues on city council, so that they could have the opportunity to give a direct answer to the question, "What is your position on the Records Keeper, Kevin Butler, refusing to turn over public records in the current case."

If you're sincere about answering that question, " What is your position on the Records Keeper, Kevin Butler, refusing to turn over public records in this current case., then why don't you just do it. Tell us where you stand.

I echo Mr. Buckley's question.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. O'Malley has advocated transparency in regards to meeting minutes and the like. Nonetheless, I do not believe this excuses his silence relating to Law Director & Public Records Custodian Kevin M. Butler withholding public records. If I were a councilperson and my city was being sued by a citizen for withholding public records, I would publicly condemn that records custodian and advocate for his resignation or removal from office. I would also do everything in my power to make those records public. If they are public, councilpersons certainly have access to them, no?

Nonetheless,the question still stands. What is Mr. O'Malley's position regarding Law Director, Records Custodian, and Officer of the Court Kevin M. Butler's refusal to release public records after at least one year of stalling? Specifically, does Mr. O'Malley condone or condemn Kevin M. Butler's behavior? This is a black and white question that can be answered in one word. Better yet, could Mr. O'Malley have not filed a complaint with the Bar Association against Kevin M. Butler for what appears and what I humbly believe to be his apparently unlawful and unethical behavior?

** O'Malley takes screenshot of response posted in Lakewood Observer, so that he can later display it to claim to be a paragon of transparency and open records virtuousness.

Has O'Malley indeed done anything of what he claims he has advocated? Any specific proposals, anything, even lip service? Anything changed? Was he on-board when the records retention policy was shortened to two years, and has he done anything to restore it to a longer duration?

Dan Alaimo wrote: Jim,
We're basically on the same page here. We shouldn't have to ask our council candidates if they want our city government to obey the law, but unfortunately we have to. We need to get all of them on the record saying so - or not - and make the answers known.
Dan

Dan

This is a gut check, Lakewoodites need to ask themselves. It seems simple, honest officials, or not.

Seems pretty simple.

If a bunch of residents hoovered together in secret for ten years and sold off Lakewood's largest asset, for private foundations they run? WTF?

When they will not produce documents? WTF?

When City Hall refuses, on clear cut public records for 3 election cycles, while lying, and spinning the facts. I'm starting to sense something more.

When ever court orders Lakewood to release the documents, the deal has been done, and buildings down, and they say no, "uhhhhh some might not exist anymore." any fool can see it as the coverup it is. I mean how bad can these documents be? Great deal for Lakewood, Mayor getting strong armed by the Clinic.

Produce the documents, let us move on, knowing we can trust our elected officials.

Bottom line in this election, "Can we trust them to honor the citizens and the sunshine laws?" I would think every candidate would say yes, let's move on...

cmager

Dan O'Malley was not in council when it was reduced to two years.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote: Bottom line in this election, "Can we trust them to honor the citizens and the sunshine laws?" I would think every candidate would say yes, let's move on...

One would think they would all say yes, and one would hope they honor that promise.
To clarify: are you saying there's no point in asking?
If nothing else, making it a campaign issue now puts more pressure on them to release the records.