ABSTRACT: In the context of Judge Robert A. O’Farrell’s written comments about the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, correspondence between a Carmel resident and the City shows the inability and/or unwillingness of the City to comply with a resident’s request for substantiation of certain claims made in support of Measure I by the Mayor and City Council to the Monterey County Elections Department. The email correspondence is reproduced.
From: Carmel Resident
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009
To: 'Heidi Burch'
Subject: Public Records Request
Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, I request documentation to substantiate the following claims made by Mayor Sue McCloud, Vice Mayor Karen Sharp, Councilperson Paula Hazdovac, Councilperson Ken Talmage and Councilperson Gerard Rose to the public through the Monterey County Elections Department in the form of their REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE I and ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I, as follows:
• Per a 2005 estimate, between $1,750,000 and $2,250,000 is needed to restore the home, including disabled access. In spite of five task forces studying possible municipal use, none was found that warrants this restoration plus continued maintenance.
Pursuant to Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, please provide documentation for the aforementioned claim.
• The City has received no acceptable, concrete proposals from groups or individuals.
Pursuant to Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, please provide documentation for the aforementioned claim; proposals as defined as including correspondence involving the potential use of the Flanders Mansion.
• After 35 years of study, the City found no municipal use for this isolated building that would merit its restoration cost and long-term maintenance.
Pursuant to Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, please provide documentation for the aforementioned claim, including specific dates.
• After the City’s purchase, Council twice discussed the possibility of selling the house to finance the purchase of the 32.4 acres of open space (of which the City has a total of 135 acres).
Pursuant to Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, please provide documentation for the aforementioned claim, including dates, agendas, minutes, et cetera.
• The City began discussing possible uses of Flanders at a town hall meeting in 1977. Subsequently, five task forces were formed, one deliberated for eight years, to determine a use which would be compatible with the Hatton Road residential area. None was found.
Pursuant to Per California Public Records Act GOVT. CODE §§ 6250 - 6276.48, please provide documentation for the aforementioned claim, including members of the five task forces, dates, reports on determination, et cetera.
If no documentation is readily available, can you please explain how it is the City Council made these claims to the public through the Monterey County Elections Department?
From: Heidi Burch [mailto:hburch@ci.carmel.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Carmel Resident
Subject: Fourth PRA request dated October 15, 2009
I am in receipt of your fourth public records request dated October 15, 2009. As you well know, the California Government Code sections you’ve cited, 6250-6270, those which pertain to the Public Records Act Request, do not require staff to substantiate political claims or claims made in ballot statements.
As I indicated in my previous response to you on October 12, 2009, your request will take a tremendous amount of staff time, at a significant cost to the taxpayers to go through the 37 years worth of documents. Aside from substantiating political claims, I would be more than pleased to assist you in your effort to obtain documents by sitting down with you at City Hall at your convenience to inspect the voluminous record that was submitted to the court.
Please let me know when it is convenient for you and I will schedule some time to help you go through the record. The City Hall offices are open Monday through Friday from 8a.m. to 5p.m.
Have a good weekend,
Heidi
From: Carmel Resident
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009
To: 'Heidi Burch'
Subject: RE: Fourth PRA request dated October 15, 2009
"THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE DO NOT YIELD THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE AGENCIES WHICH SERVE THEM. THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. THE PEOPLE INSIST THEY MAY RETAIN CONTROL OVER THE INSTRUMENTS THEY HAVE CREATED."
-- CA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
You and your fellow public servants would be wise not only to take the aforementioned quotation seriously, but you would also be wise in taking my Public Records Act request, or any member of the public’s Public Records Act request, as seriously as you took LCW’s request for what became 106 pages of documentation regarding the city’s motion to disqualify Michael Stamp as Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s attorney, especially given the fact that any registered voter of the election jurisdiction may contest the election results based on the unsubstantiated claims of the City Council appearing in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
No comments:
Post a Comment