The Observation Deck

The primary request in question was for all email communications to and from Mayor Summers from 1/1/2011 to 3/15/2016. This is over 137,000 emails. Some of these would likely be personal and not public record. However, to determine which ones are and are not public record, the court would need five sets of each of the 137,000 produced (I guess there are five people who will be assigned a set, review individually, then come together to compare notes). If each email were just one page, this would total a 685,000 page zerox copying job – minimum

Bridget Conant wrote:By the way, David Anderson's post was wildly misleading and I suspect it was deliberately so.

For example, he writes:

The primary request in question was for all email communications to and from Mayor Summers from 1/1/2011 to 3/15/2016. This is over 137,000 emails. Some of these would likely be personal and not public record. However, to determine which ones are and are not public record, the court would need five sets of each of the 137,000 produced (I guess there are five people who will be assigned a set, review individually, then come together to compare notes). If each email were just one page, this would total a 685,000 page zerox copying job – minimum

This is amusingly misplaced outrage.

The court order is online for all to read. They did not ask for copies of every record requested. The court requested copies of any requested record WITHHELD OR REDACTED by the City of Lakewood.

Only those records the city wants to prevent from being released must be presented to the court so THE COURT CAN DECIDE if the records truly are exempt under state law. THe court wants to see for themselves if the city is withholding them in good faith or if they are distorting the law for their own benefit.

There is no way that 685,000 pages are going to be presented to the court, because that is not what they were asked to do.

So Mr Anderson, did you pull those figures out of a hat? Did you not understand the court order? Or were you misinformed by your trusty law director and "record keeper?"

Bridget Conant wrote:By the way, David Anderson's post was wildly misleading and I suspect it was deliberately so.

Kate McCarthy wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:By the way, David Anderson's post was wildly misleading and I suspect it was deliberately so.

The timing I guess was more a reaction to the court proceedings than to an encounter at the library. And I do get the impression that Councilman Anderson doesn't dive into court records on his own and relies on the opinions of the likes of Kevin Butler to draw his conclusions regarding matters he hasn't studied at all. If I am wrong here, I would hope the person who started this thread would chime in.

There's a mountain of objective evidence that seems to be largely ignored by our council members. Decanting plans and a city employee harassing residents just to name a few. And to not investigate the finance director's 24-7 social media presence. I have complained that council is Summer's rubber stamp and people have said that is not the case. I would love to see any evidence to the contrary.

Mark Kindt wrote:All I am looking for is a basic sense of honesty with respect to our local government. We also deserve some basic compliance with typical standards of ethics in government. Obviously, our local government has a duty to comply with the laws on the books.

What bothers me so much about Mr. Anderson's post is that it is phrased in typical City Hall hyperbole. Every element related to the public records issue is presented as an extreme case in an exaggerated manner.

There is no attempt to honestly examine why the City should delay, impede or oppose the records requests. Who knows? The City might actually have a good reason.

The City might actually have had a good reason to close Lakewood Hospital. But in typical City Hall style the "reasons" were cast in terms of hyperbole and other styles of hype. Right down to the phony local newspaper distributed in the Fall of 2015.

Voters in America are angry across the board. This anger is largely based on the sense that our elected officials know no shame when it comes to "spin". Every communication from a public official now starts with spin, rather than an honest or sincere statement of the known facts.

We are all familiar with how media works. We all know how to recognize spin. Spin always erodes credibility. Spin, upon spin, erodes both credibility and confidence.

A complete and timely release of the withheld public records is the only way for the City to regain any credibility with the citizenry.

Mark Kindt wrote:All I am looking for is a basic sense of honesty with respect to our local government. We also deserve some basic compliance with typical standards of ethics in government. Obviously, our local government has a duty to comply with the laws on the books.

What bothers me so much about Mr. Anderson's post is that it is phrased in typical City Hall hyperbole. Every element related to the public records issue is presented as an extreme case in an exaggerated manner.

There is no attempt to honestly examine why the City should delay, impede or oppose the records requests. Who knows? The City might actually have a good reason.

The City might actually have had a good reason to close Lakewood Hospital. But in typical City Hall style the "reasons" were cast in terms of hyperbole and other styles of hype. Right down to the phony local newspaper distributed in the Fall of 2015.

Voters in America are angry across the board. This anger is largely based on the sense that our elected officials know no shame when it comes to "spin". Every communication from a public official now starts with spin, rather than an honest or sincere statement of the known facts.

We are all familiar with how media works. We all know how to recognize spin. Spin always erodes credibility. Spin, upon spin, erodes both credibility and confidence.

A complete and timely release of the withheld public records is the only way for the City to regain any credibility with the citizenry.

Some of these would likely be personal and not public record.

dl meckes wrote:

Some of these would likely be personal and not public record.

Why would personal business be conducted from City computers?

This raises a number of other concerns regarding using City resources for campaigning, etc.

Kate McCarthy wrote: ...they all collectively chose spin first, and governing second. Where they put up a literal wall between elected representatives and those they claim to serve.

Shame.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23298&hilit=computer+campaign+city+hall