ABSTRACT: A Carmelite’s emails sent directly to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre were not answered by her, as requested. Instead, City Administrator Rich Guillen intruded and stonewalled under the guise of the Public Records Act. Apparently, under the McCloud administration, Carmelites cannot have the expectation that they can engage in open dialogue with the city's “experts” for the purpose of getting answers to specific questions.
Oblivious to the public service ethic of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre refused to respond directly via email to a Carmelite’s questions about the city’s finances and instead forwarded the Carmelite’s email to City Administrator Rich Guillen who stonewalled under the guise of the Public Records Act.
Herewith is correspondence from a Carmelite to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre and City Administrator Rich Guillen’s emails.
• Wednesday, January 9, 2008:
A Carmelite sent the following email to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre, formerly the City’s Finance Manager.
Information from the City and Questions, as follows:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - Governmental Funds
Year Ended June 30, 2006
Fund Balances - Beginning of Year, restated: $8,322,653
Fund Balances - End of Year: $ 9,147,454
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - Governmental Funds
Year Ended June 30, 2007
FUND BALANCES – BEGINNING OF YEAR: $8,789,839
FUND BALANCES – END OF YEAR: $10,854,498
Questions:
Can you explain why the End of Year Fund Balance for FY 2005/06 is not the same figure as the Beginning of Year Fund Balance for FY 2006/07?
Additionally, the Auditor’s Total Fund Balance for FY 2005/06 is not the same figure as the City’s figure.
Can you explain these apparent discrepancies?
• Wednesday, January 16, 2008:
Instead of responding, City Administrator Rich Guillen sent the following email.
The Administrative Services Director has prepared a document to address the questions you asked below. You can pick it up at City Hall for $0.10 per page.
If you should need any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to see me.
• Wednesday, January 16, 2008:
Again the Carmelite emailed the Administrative Services Director, Joyce Giuffre, as follows:
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Code of Ethics states, in part, as follows:
“Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee.”
In the private sector, efficiency dictates prompt, professional responses from the person contacted or the expert in the field. In this case, as the City’s finance “expert,” I expect a prompt, professional response via email directly from you. If you cannot comply, as requested, I suggest the City repeal the City’s Code of Ethics.
• Thursday, January 17, 2008:
Again, instead of Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre responding directly, City Administrator Rich Guillen sent an email, as follows:
Ms. Giuffre complied with your request and I responded accordingly. The public information you’ve requested is here at City Hall for you to pickup.
Please let me know how we can further assist you.
COMMENTS:
• Despite the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Municipal Code, Article I. Code of Ethics stating that “We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people,” our city government will not permit a city “expert” to engage in dialogue with a member of the public for the purpose of answering specific questions. Instead, as this particular example demonstrates, the City Administrator intrudes and stonewalls under the guise of the Public Records Act.
• For context, email inquiries to other city governments, near and far, have yielded prompt, professional responses from those cities experts. In stark contrast, email inquiries to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are met with intrusion by the City Administrator to the extent that open dialogue with a city “expert” on items in the public record is forbidden.
REFERENCE:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.52
PERSONNEL SYSTEM*
Article I. Code of Ethics
2.52.010 Code of Ethics.
As public employees we are entrusted with the confidence of those we serve to fulfill the responsibilities of our roles. Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee. Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)
5 comments:
It has been clear almost from the beginning of Sue McCloud's first administration that secrecy was of paramout importance to her. While professing to support open government, especially after the Grand Jury report made it clear that it didn't exist in Carmel, McCloud and Rich Guillen, who appears to have no independence from the mayor,have actually carried "need to know" to the point of ridiculousness at times.
Joyce Giuffre probably can't be blamed for not responding directly. Carmel city employees are all nervous about the reprecussions of stepping outside the restrictive boundaries laid down for them by Rich Guillen as directed by Mayor McCloud.If Giuffre wants to keep her job, she is undoubtedly required to forward any remotely non-routine requests to Guillen. His orders seem to be to either refuse to answer, ignore or, in cases where the inquirer may insist that the law reqires an answer, give a response that doesn't actually deal with the request. When this ploy is used, he will claim he answered the request and so has fulfilled the letter of the law. Unfortunately, he and the mayor have gotten away with this without reprucussions.
From all reports the City of Carmel is literally rolling in dough. One city council member has claimed that the city is required by law to maintain reserves of 60% or more. How can that be when other cities would consider themselves very lucky to have reserves of 15%? The mayor and members of the city council keep trying to convince us that the city is strapped when anyone, who takes a look at the financials can quickly see that's nonsense. It seems pretty obvious that if the mayor and some city council members didn't want to discourage public participation there wouldn't be a ten cent a page charge for documents and there wouldn't be a policy of not simply responding to requests for information rather than forcing the public to pay money to get an answer (if some excuse isn't made about why the documents aren't available at all, which happens all too often).
The city administrator always needs policy direction from the dictator so he couldn't possibly answer a question. I know, I've experienced their routine from Brown Act to Public Records Act excuses. That's their form of open government as they keep telling us over and over.
You must understand, in government, and Sue McCloud is a classic example, failures survive until retirement. In the real world of competition, Sue would not have survived for long because her failures would not be tolerated.
And I would never vote for her because of tne content of her character. She is adverse to telling the truth and cannot be trusted. That she fools voters is a mystery. Her tripe is not credible to me, but is swallowed by many who should know better.
Post a Comment