I commented on Barry Pruett's "Nevada County Cover-up - Stan Meckler" post but Barry has declined to post the my comment so I will attempt to recreate it here. I guess I will need to keep copies of all comments I make at least until they are posted by the administrators.
What I had indicated was that Barry's suspicions about the actual costs were, as I had described, "right on target". In a nut shell what I suspect is that this liability policy that the County shares with other Counties may not be your "standard" insurance policy. Instead, because it is some kind of cooperation between Counties to pool funds, I am thinking it may also be designed to help cover up costs when the elected officials screw up. How this would work is that any particular County's premium could be derived from the effect the claims of that County has on the pool. This would result in the actual cost of this scandal being over $1 or $2 mil perhaps spread over a few years. A type of legal money laundering designed to keep you fat and happy. My next plan is to go in and try to get a copy of this document. Now as I said in my previous post, you cannot FOIA records from closed session but this document you certainly could FOIA if they refuse to pony it up. You may even be able to get a copy form one of the other Counties much easier. I won't be able to attend to this until next week. Ted?
The bottom line here is, Stan and Barry are correct. This is a cover-up. They think they are safe because of the Brown Act and closed session. I say recall the whole lot and then I bet they will start singing.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Union's AtPac FOIA Futile
With regard to the filling of an FOIA by The Union concerning the AtPac issue I would like to share some thoughts with you.
I did little investigation on this a few weeks ago when there was discussion on the blogs about culpability and leadership. This investigation started with me paying a visit to the Clerk of the Board. When asking if any tapes or other records where taken during closed session I was told that no tapes were made nor were any minutes taken. I was told by the Clerk that she only took notes when there was an action taken. The Clerk told me everything was done according to The Brown Act. I was advised to refer to The Brown Act to determine what procedures would be followed with regard to records. Having previously been subject to the restraints of this law, but not with regard to closed session, I did investigate what The Brown Act requires and restricts in closed session.
As you probably know, the intention The Brown Act is to further protect the public from so-called back-room-deals in that it requires more openness in the governing process. Knowing that, one would expect The Brown Act to provide access to and provision for records documenting any process involving elected officials influence of and discussions during actions that have effects on the electorate. In most cases this is the fact. But when one considers closed session one must also take into consideration that this usually involves attorneys. Considering this coupled with the fact that it was attorneys that wrote The Brown Act it should not come to anyone as a surprise that when it comes between the public and attorneys it is the attorneys that The Brown Act protects and this is at the expense of the public.
You see The Brown Act does not require any documentation of proceeding in closed session. It allows for a minute book but only by ordinance or resolution and this minute book may or may not include a recording. Remember, I was told by the Clerk that no minutes are kept, only notes by her when an action is taken by the Board. Now even though a minute book or recording may be used nether of these are public records subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In fact, the only way they can be disclosed is by court order and that court order can only be issued for purposes relating to a violation of The Brown Act that has occurred during the particular meeting that the record being referred to was made. And it is only that court that gets access to those records for the purpose of determining if there is reason to believe a violation of the Act has taken place. This specifically precludes disclosing any closed meeting records for the purpose of deterring any elected official's or employee's influence on any action.
The bottom line here is, I don't think The Union will be getting very far with their FOIA request. In fact, because The Brown Act makes it a crime for anyone with knowledge about proceedings in closed session to disclose information about those closed sessions The Brown Act will prohibit the public from being given the information they need to ascertain the performance and integrity of their elected officials.
I guess the only recourse will be to hold them ALL responsible. This isn't inappropriate or uncalled for when you consider that if there had been even ONE Leader in the group to start with, he, or she, would have stood up, removed himself, or herself, from what was going on and therefore but an end to the madness.
I did little investigation on this a few weeks ago when there was discussion on the blogs about culpability and leadership. This investigation started with me paying a visit to the Clerk of the Board. When asking if any tapes or other records where taken during closed session I was told that no tapes were made nor were any minutes taken. I was told by the Clerk that she only took notes when there was an action taken. The Clerk told me everything was done according to The Brown Act. I was advised to refer to The Brown Act to determine what procedures would be followed with regard to records. Having previously been subject to the restraints of this law, but not with regard to closed session, I did investigate what The Brown Act requires and restricts in closed session.
As you probably know, the intention The Brown Act is to further protect the public from so-called back-room-deals in that it requires more openness in the governing process. Knowing that, one would expect The Brown Act to provide access to and provision for records documenting any process involving elected officials influence of and discussions during actions that have effects on the electorate. In most cases this is the fact. But when one considers closed session one must also take into consideration that this usually involves attorneys. Considering this coupled with the fact that it was attorneys that wrote The Brown Act it should not come to anyone as a surprise that when it comes between the public and attorneys it is the attorneys that The Brown Act protects and this is at the expense of the public.
You see The Brown Act does not require any documentation of proceeding in closed session. It allows for a minute book but only by ordinance or resolution and this minute book may or may not include a recording. Remember, I was told by the Clerk that no minutes are kept, only notes by her when an action is taken by the Board. Now even though a minute book or recording may be used nether of these are public records subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. In fact, the only way they can be disclosed is by court order and that court order can only be issued for purposes relating to a violation of The Brown Act that has occurred during the particular meeting that the record being referred to was made. And it is only that court that gets access to those records for the purpose of determining if there is reason to believe a violation of the Act has taken place. This specifically precludes disclosing any closed meeting records for the purpose of deterring any elected official's or employee's influence on any action.
The bottom line here is, I don't think The Union will be getting very far with their FOIA request. In fact, because The Brown Act makes it a crime for anyone with knowledge about proceedings in closed session to disclose information about those closed sessions The Brown Act will prohibit the public from being given the information they need to ascertain the performance and integrity of their elected officials.
I guess the only recourse will be to hold them ALL responsible. This isn't inappropriate or uncalled for when you consider that if there had been even ONE Leader in the group to start with, he, or she, would have stood up, removed himself, or herself, from what was going on and therefore but an end to the madness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)