Ken Mann blows it, breaks a leg right out of the gate by immediately taking off the table any discussion of improprieties among council members in their handling of the requirements of the state's Open Meetings and Public Records acts. I assume they've been briefed on these (but see below), and in any case at least one member has been on council for more than a decade and must know better.
Speaking of that one member, Sam Crawford--who is a lot more cunning than I think many people give him credit for--instantly seizes the scope of questioning and kidnaps it even further afield.
I find it interesting that the two newest council members most in need of this information were not present. Kershner was absent. Knutzen, who had been there, fled immediately when the discussion began.
A complete waste of time... except as an illustration of just how awful, how TERRIBLE Karen Frakes is in her role as public counsel.
What these people need are GUIDELINES of how to stay easily within the doctrines of appearance of fairness, not the slippery slope of possible future legal defense ("I suppose that would hold up. These things are complicated."). Notice not one county employee suggests some simple procedural policies that might (easily) keep these folks out of trouble, such as simply making a habit of cc'ing all incoming and outgoing communications to the council secretary.
These issues are NOT that complicated, and if they are--given how frequently they happen (these are our public representatives who we speak to and through)--they should be made less so by policy and guidelines and self-imposed rules of order. This never occurs to Karen. AWFUL.
Notice also how Crawford uses Brenner's total e-incompetence (who uses AOL in 2010??) as a shield for his own cunning. He admits in stages how sophisticated his own understanding of technology is, and how "wired in" he is with at least some "community," how much council business he conducts online, but employs her bumbling understanding to shelter his misdeeds.
The whole conversation goes off the rails trying to walk Babs through the complexities of using e-mail lists (can't the IT Dept. set this up for her offline? Can't someone suggest she switch to some non-Flintstones-era provider?) and Crawford gets to skate on his clear and knowing violations. HER lunatic emails were never the source of public concern. HIS cunning emails were.
Brenner's comment about only being online since 2002 is priceless. Isn't that about the time EVERYONE got online? 2002 was a lifetime ago in electronic communications tech.
Anonymous36, you nailed it. What a waste of time and opportunity, with nothing to show for it. That these people control the county’s checkbook and legal decisions is VERY scary.
I respect Ken, but he was totally unprepared for this meeting. And, by introducing the open public meeting aspect of email communication in the beginning, he confused that issue with the public disclosure one.
I sent Ken a link to the City of Monroe’s email policies in advance, but it appears he did not review it. Here’s the link again. There is absolutely no reason to reinvent the wheel (especially when staff does not appear capable of inventing it to begin with).
Thanks for taping this session. Wow, what misery -- having to sit through that. There is such good guidance on MRSC, Attorney General and the Coalition for Open Government web sites, I fail to understand why the Council and staff couldn't have put together an educational session. One is just left shaking their head at what will, or won't happen next.
First off, the Council can open all of their emails that are sent to their county email addresses on their home computer. The county email system is called Groupwise, and you log into an account and can retrieve your emails and respond. There is absolutely no reason to have the system set up to forward to your personal email account.
Crawford having the system forward county emails to his private account does not take care of the problem. It only makes it worse. His home computer, and his personal email account, is now subject to public records. And, Whatcom County (read the darn Supreme Court decision) is obliged to inspect his home system. They didn't do that in the request for the deleted record, and as the Supreme Court stated, that will be an issue of damages to the person seeking that record. So, stop putting the county taxpayers at risk, and use the system that you have been given.
Not that there isn't any reason not to trust Mr. Crawford. After all, his system was bullet proof. How come he was able to retrieve emails from this person before and after the "deleted" email? Shocking. Give me a break. Everyone knows he deleted the email. Come clean, at least, and explain to us, what the $60,000 was all about. Was it campaign contributions to council candidates last fall? What was it? (If only we had that public record.)
As for public meetings, why is it that not one of the four council members that received an email from this same person ever forwarded that email on to the rest of the council members? Four out of seven is a quorum. This substantive email was talking about the strategy to silence the city of Bellingham from the UGA appeals filed by the development community and small cities.
But, I do feel sorry for the new members. They haven't been given any training, guidance or a system for them to work properly. The Public Records Officer (Mark) and IT Director (Perry) are doing the best in a vacuum. What these gentlemen likely wanted to really say to Crawford was this: "Stop forwarding your email to your personal system. Work with the tools that the county gave you! Then, our job will be much easier, as well as yours! Duh!"
And Anon36, why dishin poor AOL? I'm with Barbara on this one. That's where you can catch me.
Ken Mann blows it, breaks a leg right out of the gate by immediately taking off the table any discussion of improprieties among council members in their handling of the requirements of the state's Open Meetings and Public Records acts. I assume they've been briefed on these (but see below), and in any case at least one member has been on council for more than a decade and must know better.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of that one member, Sam Crawford--who is a lot more cunning than I think many people give him credit for--instantly seizes the scope of questioning and kidnaps it even further afield.
I find it interesting that the two newest council members most in need of this information were not present. Kershner was absent. Knutzen, who had been there, fled immediately when the discussion began.
A complete waste of time... except as an illustration of just how awful, how TERRIBLE Karen Frakes is in her role as public counsel.
What these people need are GUIDELINES of how to stay easily within the doctrines of appearance of fairness, not the slippery slope of possible future legal defense ("I suppose that would hold up. These things are complicated."). Notice not one county employee suggests some simple procedural policies that might (easily) keep these folks out of trouble, such as simply making a habit of cc'ing all incoming and outgoing communications to the council secretary.
These issues are NOT that complicated, and if they are--given how frequently they happen (these are our public representatives who we speak to and through)--they should be made less so by policy and guidelines and self-imposed rules of order. This never occurs to Karen. AWFUL.
Notice also how Crawford uses Brenner's total e-incompetence (who uses AOL in 2010??) as a shield for his own cunning. He admits in stages how sophisticated his own understanding of technology is, and how "wired in" he is with at least some "community," how much council business he conducts online, but employs her bumbling understanding to shelter his misdeeds.
ReplyDeleteThe whole conversation goes off the rails trying to walk Babs through the complexities of using e-mail lists (can't the IT Dept. set this up for her offline? Can't someone suggest she switch to some non-Flintstones-era provider?) and Crawford gets to skate on his clear and knowing violations. HER lunatic emails were never the source of public concern. HIS cunning emails were.
Brenner's comment about only being online since 2002 is priceless. Isn't that about the time EVERYONE got online? 2002 was a lifetime ago in electronic communications tech.
Anonymous36, you nailed it. What a waste of time and opportunity, with nothing to show for it. That these people control the county’s checkbook and legal decisions is VERY scary.
ReplyDeleteI respect Ken, but he was totally unprepared for this meeting. And, by introducing the open public meeting aspect of email communication in the beginning, he confused that issue with the public disclosure one.
I sent Ken a link to the City of Monroe’s email policies in advance, but it appears he did not review it. Here’s the link again. There is absolutely no reason to reinvent the wheel (especially when staff does not appear capable of inventing it to begin with).
http://www.mrsc.org/PolicyProcedures/M67email.pdf
Who doesn't think that Sam Crawford is cunning?
ReplyDeleteDid Karen seriously say "I don't think this is a big problem, because I think that you're all sensitive to that issue"? Clearly they aren't.
Thanks for taping this session. Wow, what misery -- having to sit through that. There is such good guidance on MRSC, Attorney General and the Coalition for Open Government web sites, I fail to understand why the Council and staff couldn't have put together an educational session. One is just left shaking their head at what will, or won't happen next.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the Council can open all of their emails that are sent to their county email addresses on their home computer. The county email system is called Groupwise, and you log into an account and can retrieve your emails and respond. There is absolutely no reason to have the system set up to forward to your personal email account.
Crawford having the system forward county emails to his private account does not take care of the problem. It only makes it worse. His home computer, and his personal email account, is now subject to public records. And, Whatcom County (read the darn Supreme Court decision) is obliged to inspect his home system. They didn't do that in the request for the deleted record, and as the Supreme Court stated, that will be an issue of damages to the person seeking that record. So, stop putting the county taxpayers at risk, and use the system that you have been given.
Not that there isn't any reason not to trust Mr. Crawford. After all, his system was bullet proof. How come he was able to retrieve emails from this person before and after the "deleted" email? Shocking. Give me a break. Everyone knows he deleted the email. Come clean, at least, and explain to us, what the $60,000 was all about. Was it campaign contributions to council candidates last fall? What was it? (If only we had that public record.)
As for public meetings, why is it that not one of the four council members that received an email from this same person ever forwarded that email on to the rest of the council members? Four out of seven is a quorum. This substantive email was talking about the strategy to silence the city of Bellingham from the UGA appeals filed by the development community and small cities.
But, I do feel sorry for the new members. They haven't been given any training, guidance or a system for them to work properly. The Public Records Officer (Mark) and IT Director (Perry) are doing the best in a vacuum. What these gentlemen likely wanted to really say to Crawford was this: "Stop forwarding your email to your personal system. Work with the tools that the county gave you! Then, our job will be much easier, as well as yours! Duh!"
And Anon36, why dishin poor AOL? I'm with Barbara on this one. That's where you can catch me.