Comments on: Open government laws questioned at city hall

By: outsider2ssss

outsider2ssss — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:23:35 +0000

If the city’s documents were on line fewer requests would be filed. That would mean less information control for the council, so instead we have to pay those costs Jim Bond is worried about. Democracy comes with costs Jim.

By: FIA Financial Burden

FIA Financial Burden — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:07:54 +0000

The financial burden of fulfilling Freedom of Information Act requests that Bond mentions is incurred when they have to call staff back from the Pannikin to their desks in order to sanitize any files that citizens may be requesting.

These files might include such things as "documents that aren’t complete or accurate," emails from developers to the Planning Department asking for special favors, reports and accounting documents that contain such exotic concepts as addition sums that are added correctly.

All of this stuff is highly sensitive and must be hidden from the Encinitas public since we are known to become "confused" when confronted with the truth from these people.

To implement such an extensive and far-reaching ass-covering operation does not come cheap–especially since more and more citizens are becoming aware of what is happening!

By: Leucadia Blog

Leucadia Blog — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:41:39 +0000

Be aware that when the city was asked for the "draft" the city was already hiding the final report. The public had good reason to suspect this and asked the city to prove it wasn’t complete by releasing the most current version. They didn’t want to admit that it was complete or let the public know about the contents of the report.
The city is willing to spin and manipulate the public. A Sunshine ordinance would put an end to that BS.

By: OpEncinitas

OpEncinitas — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:11:24 +0000

Nice article. If the city were more open, fewer people would be asking for drafts because we would trust the info we get. But spending $35k plus the opposing attorney fees to lose a lawsuit trying to defend secrecy is a travesty and we should appreciate that Teresa didn’t support that.

By: Leucadia Blog

Leucadia Blog — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:41:16 +0000

RHG,
Yeap, looked like Barth made a singular mistake on the surfing madonna. We’ve been pushing for less manipulation of the public process and we wrote up the madonna issue which was equal treatment of barth , see here:
http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2011/06/art-emergency.html
Gaspar also voted with Barth, but since she has not been calling for more open government I guess shes not a problem too?
Barth is the only one that actively supported a sunshine ordinance. Stocks, bond, dalager, and houlihan have the distinction of being the first council to vote against even considering one.
If the city had policies and practices that I’ve been suggesting, there would have been a way to have Barth’s and Gaspar’s actions officiall reviewed without a need to file another open government lawsuit. There are plenty of other open government law violations going on AND lots of cheap and easy ways to increase the transparency of city hall.
On the flip-side Barth is the only council member to not keep much of their correspondence a secret. Why no mention of that?

By: What's Your Point?

What's Your Point? — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:53:47 +0000

I don’t even understand what your point is Real Honest Gov.

We are talking about back room deals that have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars when they are added up, spectacularly corrupt and inept performance by staff in the Planning Department, the endangerment of citizens through poor oversight of greenhouse projects converted to upzoned housing developments, illegal campaign contributions, quid pro quo, so what is your point again?

Is whatever you are talking about the worst thing that you can say about Teresa Barth when there is the appearance of criminal behavior among staff and majority council members?

By: Real honest Gov

Real honest Gov — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 02:28:12 +0000

Barth stated on May 18th that she new about vandalism occuring on the "Surfing Mdonna". On May 25th she claimed she didn’t and made a motion to add an emergency item to that evening’s meeting thus attempting to deprive the public the ability to know in advance about the discussion she wanted to have and in complete violation of the open government CA Brown Act.
I’ve been waiting for one of you loudmouth’s to do or say something about it, but apparently your feigned outrage is reserved for people not Teresa Barth. It seems that even when she does wrong, you believe she can do no wrong…
Watch the tapes for yourself and listen to the meeting on the 25th where the City Attorney try’s to tell her she can’t make a finding, but she lies and does it anyway!
Great theater!

By: Duhhhh

Duhhhh — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:55:17 +0000

"Bond added that draft versions of documents aren’t always complete or accurate and can cause confusion. Glenn Sabine, the city’s attorney who defended the open records request lawsuit, made a similar argument during court proceedings."

Did it ever occur to Jim Bond and Glenn Sabine that we EXPECT for documents to be complete and accurate, and that is what staff is paid to do?

Read more: Coast News Group – Open government laws questioned at city hall

By: W.C. Varones

W.C. Varones — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:51:08 +0000

Stocks and Bond: "You have to let us run government by secret backroom deals because it’s too expensive to respond when people ask what we’re doing."