Mann
A recent string of requests by environmentalist Wendy Harris has some of the council members angry and annoyed at what they consider to be overly broad, punitive records requests.
You can read about one such request, and a full debate about it, over at Mann’s blog, right here.
In one particular instance, former county Planning Director David Stalheim is accusing County Councilman Sam Crawford of deleting an e-mail that Stalheim knows existed in the past. According to an e-mail exchange between county public records officer Mark Burnfield and Stalheim, Crawford did acknowledge at one point that the e-mail existed, but said he couldn’t seem to find it.
Burnfield told Stalheim that, in his capacity as public records officer, there wasn’t much he could do other than tell Stalheim that the record couldn’t be provided.
But after that debate, Mann said he has heard that part of the reason why some are making the requests is because they feel like the county government — including some elected officials — is being unresponsive, and that if the records were simply fully provided the requests would stop.
There are issues that Mann would like to address:
• Does the county have adequate technology on hand to deal with expansive requests for government e-mails?
• Should County Council members continue to use their private e-mail accounts for government business?
• Is the council adequately complying with the state’s Open Public Meetings Act by not having too much quorum-level discussion via e-mail (and, thusly, out of the public eye)?
• Overall, what can be done better to deal with these issues?
Asked if he felt like he would get push-back from some council members on the issue, Mann was quick with a response:
“Yeah,” he said, then laughing.
The councilman said he did think there would be pushback “from some people who don’t want to be responding to what is perceived as harassing or partisan attacks that have been made via these (public records requests).”
Added Mann:
I think there are definitely people on the council who think these (requests) are being made in an attempt to make the council look bad because they don’t like the direction of the new council majority. And I think it’s important for us to rise above that and say: ‘Whether or not we like the accusations being made, whether or not we like the people making these accusations, it’s still our job to strive for better efficiency and better transparency to protect the work we do to represent the people.’”
The session tomorrow is planned to be a “casual question and answer-type session,” said Clerk of the Council Dana Brown-Davis.
Council attorney Karen Frakes and county public records officer Mark Burnfield have been invited to come to the meeting if it fits their schedules, Brown-Davis said.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:19 PM
You know I had a feeling this was going to be another fun week!
Cya in the AM!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 18th, 2010 at 3:28 PM
AFY would probabaly care if Futurewise wrote development laws behind closed doors with no public process that were then passed into law without the ability of the public to track the process.
But he does not seem to care if lawyers from out of town write development regulations that are then introduced verbatim by members of the council majority. The lack of open records and process are fine with AFY when he agrees with the conclusions.
Talk about moral relativism.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Mr. Kirsch, libel isn’t allowed on this blog.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:34 PM
AFY - The video was over the line. Your comment was removed.
October 18th, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Sounds like some meeting. The attorney and public records officer may or may not attend. There’s been no public notice. There appears to be no agenda, other than “talk about stuff.” Our County Council, on the job.
And — “there are definitely people on the council who think these (requests) are being made in an attempt to make the council look bad because they don’t like the direction of the new council majority.” Why would the Council worry about “looking” bad, based on its own records, if Council members had clear consciences?
October 18th, 2010 at 4:09 PM
So, King John, you’re blaming Ken Mann, from the way I read your comment?
October 18th, 2010 at 4:16 PM
No, not intended. Just wondering whether the County (public records officer, Attorney) is taking this seriously. And Ken’s comment talked about the whole Council, not himself.
October 18th, 2010 at 4:23 PM
King John - In what way do you feel the public records officer (who, incidentally, isn’t the boss), should do in this regard? What do you feel the PRO *can* do?
October 18th, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Sam,
I would think that he would report to the Council on his list of duties under the County’s “Public Records Request and Disclosure” policies, letting them know what the County’s current system is and whether there are problems that could be resolved. He must be in the best position to assess the system and to understand ways to make any needed improvements. That’s why his presence seems kind of important, and an opportunity to get some attention paid to what must be an unsung task.
Also — he presumably has had the most training in these issues, which would be helpful to the Council. (”All agency employees should receive basic training on public records compliance and records retention; public records officers should receive more intensive training.” WAC 44-14-00005.)
October 18th, 2010 at 7:02 PM
When the Council makes a request, those requests tend to be accepted. I’d be very surprised if neither the attorney nor the PRO attended the committee meeting.
October 18th, 2010 at 7:13 PM
To be clear, I have submitted exactly ONE public records request to Whatcom County. I did this because I was astonished at the email that Councilmember Crawford shared with me, and which he conveniently can no longer find.
Mr. Crawford advertised his personal email address on the Council website, making his personal email and home computer part of the county records process. So, what was in this one email?
Good question. The email was from someone representing Caitac. He admonished Crawford for not voting to put the Caitac request to be in the UGA on the docket. The email said something like: “What the f?%@# dude? We got you $60,000 and now you’ve gone all liberal on us.”
I guess I can understand why I would want to delete such an email. Only, it is against the law to delete a public record, plus the question about any money being exchanged in return for action from Councilmember Crawford.
(Don’t worry about Crawford going all liberal. The Caitac proposal has been submitted and forwarded for public hearings already. The settlement agreement before the County Council agrees to docket the UGA amendment for hearing next year, thus making good on this email exchange from 7 months ago.)
Whatcom County has an obligation to get this email — and their response: “Whatcom County will be taking no action in regards to the e-mail in question. I am well aware of the thorny issues surrounding e-mail communications and public disclosure, but in my position I can only offer County employees and elected officials advice on e-mail management, not impose solutions.”
Here is some advice from the Supreme Court on this issue: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=823979MAJ
October 18th, 2010 at 8:50 PM
I seem to be missing something here: the time and location of this meeting? PLEASE someone contact me in the morning and let me know where this is happening???
October 18th, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Thanks, David. Sam T seems to think my reference to Crawford’s financial machinations is without any factual basis, and, hence, libelous.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday October 19th in Council Chambers beginning at 1:30 p.m.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:21 PM
“What the f?%@# dude? We got you $60,000 and now you’ve gone all liberal on us.”
If this e-mail can be produced,(and it can) Sam Crawford should resign.
If he doesn’t resign,he should be removed.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:34 PM
I’m stunned that the County’s legal department continues to allow elected officials use their private email in such cavalier fashion, apparently not taking adequate steps to keep a permanent record/copy of all council-related emails. It has been recognized for quite a while that emails to/from elected officials concerning official matters fall under the authority of the Public Records Act (PRA), whether on a private account/computer or a publicly owned and operated system.
The recent court ruling goes even further, saying that even the “metadata” for such email (all that technical header stuff about routing etc.) is also a part of the public record. In other words, you can’t just keep a copy of the body of the text, but all of the routing information must be kept as well.
There’s no way Mr. Crawford should have been allowed to delete the email. Why he is not facing some kind of public sanction/censure from his colleagues is beyond me. I’ve heard no public apology, and that strikes me as arrogant.
Quoting the recent WA Supreme Court decision: “If government employees could circumvent the PRA by using their home computers for government business, the PRA could be drastically undermined.”
No kidding.
October 18th, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Hummm.
Could there be some strangely compelling relevance to the cruelly impartial intersection camera craze, and the compelling need for such cameras to be in all government offices? Look at me, look at you. I figure the cost involved would be well worth it in “Comedy Hour” exposure alone. Of course, “honest government” might loose it’s status as an oxymoronic pair of words…
As for email? The same thing. Put up every single county (and city!) email up on a scrolling web site. Easy. “cc: John Q. Public” on every mailing, internal and outbound.
Government surveillance at its very, very best.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Uncle George, if you want to have the string of emails from a citizen that called me a bunch of great expletives, let me know. I didn’t delete that public record when I was a county employee. These emails are from the same person that confronted me in a public meeting, documented in the Birch Bay Blog here: http://birchbayblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/personal-property-vx-social.html,
From the blog: “David Stalheim, director of the planning department, identified himself, and after an exchange that caused some to fear for David’s well-being, the two adjourned to another room. David came back without apparent harm; the angry property owner didn’t.”
Public service. It is what we do, and we don’t delete the public’s records when we do it. Period.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:12 PM
It’s been less than a decade since we reached the point where more people have email than don’t have email. Still have some bugs to be worked out.
Clearly all government electeds should use a government email system (with email addresses like kmann@co.whatcom.wa.us), where the public records officer has total access, and where the elected’s delete ability just sends emails to a recycle bin that the P.R.O. admin can check to delete any true spam or redundant emails.
I do not think that Crawford or any elected can be blamed for receiving an email that mixes campaign contribution discussion with policy discussion, …so long as the elected responds with a form letter explaining why this is a no no, and refusing to discuss further.
This happened last year when the unions sent the “not one more dime until they vote for unions” email to their organizers …and… also copied that email to sitting legislators. It was not legally the fault of the legislators to be sent such an inappropriate communication. Technically, they could have gone ahead with usual legislating. However, many legislators saw that this email scandal could have the appearance of impropriety, and so they backed away from the very legislation that the unions were frantically pushing for.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:11 AM
Congratulations to Mr. Mann for stepping up to the plate and making the rebuilding of public trust in our government an issue, and attempting to address it.
One of the great failures of government is it’s inability to police itself. Nobody has better view of government, than the people running it.
Repeated document requests, would not be pervasive if it did not turn up “nuggets” once and a while.
Officials cannot blame the public for these “nuggets”, but they often do.
The public loves the disclosure laws. No law has ever opened government up more, nor has any law ever discovered more abuse of our laws and trust.
We love this law, and the people who have the courage to take the abuse from government and demand documents due to the public under these laws, …
… are our heroes.
“Friendly government” is not what is normally experienced, when you ask for documents, by the way. Often the requester is personally attacked for having the audacity to ask for documents from our government. Resentment, defensiveness, and all to often public scorn have to be faced by folks who would simply like to see how and why our government behaves behind closed doors.
When government functions correctly, and elected politicians police government effectively, we don’t find any “nuggets” in document requests, and then magically the number of document requests goes down.
On Ken Mann’s blog, Barbara Brenner chirped, whining about the horrible burden these requests are.
Respectfully Ms. Brenner, as one the longest serving members of our County council, you of all people should understand that this law has been in effect for 32 years now, and if your informational systems are not up to snuff.
Do you not share more than a little to blame, for weak systems?
This is not a new law.
Figuring out which issues are of interest to the public is easy. for the most part.
The abuse of the public’s trust virtually always revolves around a potential government action in which a private party can make a lot of money.
This is predominently land use zoning.
This is easy to control, but politicians who want to be deal-makers always get in the way, because they want to communicate with the developer personally. (Private conversations allow them to bring up campaign contributions, future jobs, and other “favors”)
This is easy to control. Attorney’s have long controlled this by insisting there is one spokesperson for each side. One government, and one private contact.
Make a copy of each communications, and post it to the internet.
Barbara and Sam, this is not that hard to solve, if you truly want to.
October 19th, 2010 at 6:16 AM
Far as I recall, Richard, Crawford wasn’t a candidate for anything at the time; don’t believe you will find the aforementioned “contribution” reported on any PDC filings.
It’s not about the e-mails, it’s about the money! What has it come to with the county council? Some policy bazaar where votes are traded for money and voters are traded for financing?
October 19th, 2010 at 6:57 AM
Good job Ken for calling this meeting- SB makes a number of really excellent points. It’s a shame that the sort of system envisioned is not already in place- one would think the County staff would have some iron-clad proceedures for this on hand, as the law is not exactly new. This lack points to a problem in the administration of the County. You could urge that all of the detailed County budget figures also be made readily available to the public- this would also head off the need for these requests. Once everything is out in the open, folks will not feel defensive about information requests (and the number of those requests will also dwindle).
October 19th, 2010 at 7:13 AM
The comment was generic and non-partisan, Dave, and not at all directed. All government offices where the public’s business or done or discussed are just that — public.
It just seems — of interest — that technical advances creating revenue generators such as traffic control supersedes what interests there are in open government. As costs go down, however, the technology is there for our defined uses, whatever those may be.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:15 AM
Anyone can send an email to anyone else and say whatever they want in that email, the emailee should not be held responsible without independent evidence for whatever the emailer wants to email the emailee, i.e. lets say that my dear GHK sent an email to Ken Mann and it says “We got you $60,000 and now you’ve gone all conservative on us.”, just because that email was sent does not make it true.
I agree with Ken Mann’s statement:
“I think there are definitely people on the council who think these (requests) are being made in an attempt to make the council look bad because they don’t like the direction of the new council majority. And I think it’s important for us to rise above that and say: ‘Whether or not we like the accusations being made, whether or not we like the people making these accusations, it’s still our job to strive for better efficiency and better transparency to protect the work we do to represent the people.’”
Because there are people who sole goal in life is to make this council look bad because they don’t like the direction.
Personally I would look at this as an opportunity to set guidelines that are reasonable and clear for everyone to understand and appreciate. And no where would/should any reasonable person think that someone receiving an email from anyone (who happens to have someone’s email’s address) be held responsible for whatever that email has to say, just based on what the email did say!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 19th, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Without a clear public record the public is left to speculate. The $60,000 question simply leads to wild speculation; I have my theories, but that is all they are theories. The only way to resolve this question would be a criminal investigation opening bank records.
What I do know is that developer attorneys are writing draft ordinances for the council and negotiating directly with council members both publicly and privately.
Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ward Nelson and Sam Crawford have allowed and enabled the taking over of County long term planning by attorneys representing land speculators. The recently introduced ordinance for taking the Lake Padden watershed out of urban growth area reserve status and designating as urban growth area with no public facilities or public urban growth service analysis is just the latest example. That introduced ordinance is nearly word for word identical to the ordinance sent by Belcher Swanson to the County Council in July.
Thus far passivity of County Executive Pete Kremen has aided this era where land speculators and their attorneys are running county planning.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:45 AM
Apologies, Perry - I cranked that out toward the end of my day yesterday and missed that.
1:30 p.m. in council chambers.
October 19th, 2010 at 8:47 AM
Dan McShane, if you think the law is being broken, why not file suit?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 19th, 2010 at 10:09 AM
AFY- rather difficult since the email was never released to the public and besides I’d rather concentrate on the facts I know versus speculative theories. The fact I know is that attorneys for land speculators and developers are writting land use ordinances and the council is moving at least one of those ordinaces forward without following the codified public process for amending growth plans.
Whether that makes the council and the executive look bad is up to individuals to decide.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:28 AM
So Dan, we both know you would never want to make the council look bad and it appears you believe (as I, me and Dan see eye to eye!) that no laws were broken.
I’s know if you thought any laws broken, you would take action for sure, being the person you be.
I will sleep better tonite!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 19th, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Dan, why don’t you run for County Council if you can do a better job than the current members? I would rather have attorneys for land speculators writing land use ordinances than Futurewise people. They have really simple land use ordinances, “you can’t use your land”.
October 19th, 2010 at 10:35 AM
1) Dan - Can you tell me where in County Code it’s required for the Planning Commission to review this process for amending? I keep hearing this but I’m unclear where people are seeing this requirement.
2) Huntony - Didn’t local conservatives, who have fought for property rights quite vociferously, just fight against the wind mills on someone else’s land?
October 19th, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Hi, Sam,
The question was directed at Dan McShane, but I found the code…
You can study WCC 2.160 front to back and you will not find any provision that allows for the County to skip this statute. (I know… I know… they already did skip this step this summer… but when people asked why this was done no one, including me, got a truly responsive answer.)
It is my understanding that all comp plan amendments are supposed to go to the planning commission and the planning commission is supposed to hold at least one public hearing. This includes non-concurrent amendments that are for the purpose of settling a lawsuit as well as amendments that are made based on a ruling by a court or the Growth Management Hearings Board.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:15 AM
So, Apexnerd, do you intend to challenge this in front of the GMHB? As far as we’re aware - this isn’t something Futurewise or Dean Martin are addressing in their challenges.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Sam
I will send the code mark up I sent to council to you.
The County Code is written in a manner that ensures a robust public process as well as an evaluation of facts. The Council majority is skipping this process under the guise of settlement. The developer attorneys that are witting the ordinances and demanding results for thier investments may think that skipping the usual public process is ok and apparently the majority of the council agrees. However, if they did follow appropriate process, they might find that some of land spec proposed growth plans are very far from conservative and rely very heavily on subsidies from tax payers and utility rate payers.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Hi, Sam, I’m barely prepared to make blog comments on this matter right now, let alone file any petitions or motions. (Means no.)
October 19th, 2010 at 7:01 PM
@ Ken Mann:
If you’re reading this blog, you might consider reviewing the extensive email procedures established by the City of Monroe, WA for elected and appointed officials @:
http://www.mrsc.org/PolicyProcedures/M67email.pdf
I’ll also post this on your blog.
@ AFY,
Is there not a law that prohibits an elected official from deleting emails that relate to his elected position? If so, hasn’t Sam Crawford violated that law?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:13 AM
OM, sorry but I don’t pretend to know all the laws (IMHO we have half agin to many), but if one was violated and if I’s thought it was an important violation, I’s would not be just making charges I’s would be making sure those violation were brought to the attention of the proper authorities, otherwise me charges would be look at as just another baseless political ploy that is so common with he said; she said; accusations.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 20th, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Since Sam Crawford admitted that he deleted the email, I don’t believe we have a he said, she said scenario. Not even a he said, he said. Just a simple illegal act that even AFY can’t defend.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:34 AM
OM, there you go again, trying to say I am not doing something or doing something that neither I be doing!
I am neither defending or not defending but am advocating if someone broke the law than those that say that should be going to the authorities than just be hooting and hollering!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 20th, 2010 at 9:46 AM
I didn’t say you were defending it. I said even you could NOT defend it. Your comment is comical though, considering it comes from someone who spends their whole day “hooting & hollering.”
Besides, it appears the authorities are already looking into it.
On a separate note, I find it ironic that the “$60,000″ email was sent to your good buddy Crawford by your other good buddy Clayton. This is really too funny.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:37 PM
OM - that link to the MRSC email guidelines is excellent. The county, city and port should adopt those immediately.
There are several chronic problems going on locally that undermine the public’s right to an open and fair government:
- council member using their private emails to discuss public issues with the belief that this will be private. This happens a lot.
- councils or committees (like the Waterfront Advisory Group) discussing issues before them via email when a quorum of members is on the email loop.
-texting between the audience and council members during meetings. This is wrong and should stop. It gives some members of the public an advantage over others at public meetings.
The internet isn’t new. It’s past time for our local governments to come to terms with this and implement firm rules on behalf of the public’s right to know.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Thanks Suzie Q. Glad it worked for you. Always here to help.
October 21st, 2010 at 10:29 AM
OM when it is all over and we look back at our lifes the one thing that will stand out, will be our good buddies!
I am proud of them all!
I’s got many good buddies:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1308/562554257_53f458e042.jpg
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 21st, 2010 at 10:38 AM
How can anyone be proud of buddies who are unashamed of taking money to deliver votes.
October 21st, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Love the picture of cats. Nothing to do with the discussion but I do love cats.
October 21st, 2010 at 10:46 AM
My dear GHK, if you have evidence of someone breaking the law, take it to the authorities and have charges bought otherwise all it is, is another baseless political charge that a lot of us see right thru!
But you do say the nicest things!
Hey just for you I’s have a song from a good buddy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1R56ZdTTh8
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 21st, 2010 at 10:49 AM
LC, I loves cats too!
But they can be the weirdest creatures! Maybe that’s why they appeal to this ole sheepdog!!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
October 21st, 2010 at 10:57 AM
My dear AFY, the authorities are already aware of the situation. Let’s see if they do anything. You’ve been here a few weeks now. What ya think the chances McEachran’s gonna enforce the disclosure laws?
October 21st, 2010 at 1:18 PM
My dear GHK, hot air is not smoke! There’s no need to look for a fire when you knows there ain’t one!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!