Giggle, that got you to read this, didn't it. It is actually a little bit serious. Check out what happen to this guy's open record request.
ORIGINAL REQUEST
I didn't actually know he did this at the time, but Bob Klebba send in the following request:
From: Bob Klebba
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 12:10 PM
To: 'lveldran@cityofmadison.com'
Subject: open records request
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for helping to get this started.
I would like copies of the following records between Bridget Maniaci and anyone at the Hammes Co and between Alder Maniaci and Mayor Cieslewicz.
These records may include but are not limited to:
Handwritten, typed or printed documents
Maps and charts
Photographs, films, maps, audio recordings
Computer printouts, CDs and DVDs
Electronic records and communications
The period over from which these records I am requesting are from Alder Maniaci’s beginning her office until when the records compilation begins, today or after 11 December 2009.
Thanks for your help,
Bob Klebba
1213 E Mifflin St
WAITING, WAITING, HOLIDAYS, REMINDER . . . ANOTHER REMINDER . . .
After a month, he got frustrated and sent this:
From: Bob KlebbaKebba finally got frustrated and asked me what could be done. I suggested he contact Roger Allen in the City Attorney's office, as he is the city's open records guru and enforcer. So, Bob did . . .
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:50 PM
To: 'lveldran@cityofmadison.com'
Cc: 'rallen@cityofmadison.com'
Subject: RE: open records request
Hi Lisa,
It’s now been more than a month that I’ve made this request. Please let me know when I should expect this information.
Thanks, Bob
from Bob KlebbaI'd say. I'm pretty appalled this has taken nearly 6
to rallen@cityofmadison.com
cc lveldran@cityofmadison.com
date Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:05 PM
subject FW: open records request
Mr. Allen
On Friday, it will be six weeks since I made my open records request. Can you please follow up with the appropriate people to find out when I might expect a response?
Given the timeliness of the situation, any further delay could be construed as obstruction.
Thanks, Bob Klebba
RESPONSE THAT HE'LL GET A RESPONSE
Here's the response he got . . .
From: Veldran, Lisa [mailto:LVeldran@cityofmadison.com]I'm not sure if this is just more of that stellar public service from the council office staff or what happened here, but it doesn't look good. So much time went by, he had to file another open records request.
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:13 PM
To: xxxxxx
Cc: Allen, Roger; Maniaci, Bridget
Subject: RE: open records request
Bob,
The emails that were copied are from Ald. Maniaci’s personal email account and had to be printed off separately. The copied reports were reports that Ald. Maniaci had in her possession. I am willing to waive the fee for printing costs. Bringing your total cost to $2.00 for the CD’s.
I will need to ask Ald. Maniaci to supply any record of text messages from 4/21/09-12/11/09 that involve communications from her to and from the Mayor and communication from any representative of the Hammes Company as they relate to the Edgewater.
The date range that was used for the open records request was 4/21/09 – 12/11/09.
If you wish to request records covering another time period please send me a separate open records request.
Thank you again for your patience and have a good weekend!
Lisa Veldran, Administrative Assistant
Madison Common Council Office
Since I'm on vacation and wrote this on Saturday, I don't know the latest, but I'll fill you in when I know more. If I had any new info, this would have been updated . . . so likely nothing new.
My bet is that an illegal walking quorum was going on during the common council back-door meeting that resulted in referral of Landmarks reconsideration.
ReplyDeleteDid you see what a happy clam Bob Dunn was during the council meeting? And how he stated he was "confident the Edgewater will fare very well in front of the UDC and Plan Commission."
Klebba should do another open records request for all records to date (as well as the records of those Alders involved in the behind-the-scenes Edgewater/Landmarks referral).
The public has a right to know, especially with $16 million involved.
I know it is easy to scream "CONSPIRACY THEORY"-but this is the City of Madison. Nothing with them is ever easy! I know the Edgewater is big news- but I doubt they move quicky on any request- ever. Brenda- you have experience with this- How long would it take you to turn around an open records request? Is there a written time limit in the open records request law?
ReplyDeleteBut, regardless, 6 weeks is a little ridiculous.
I see a conspiracy here too, Brenda raised the ire of the whole thing by saying it was 6 months, not 6 weeks in the lapse of time. That just adds more fuel to the fire in exaggerating the facts. I will laugh when they find no big conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, will Capitol Neighborhoods stop at nothing to bring the Edgewater to it's knees? It's about time someone investigate all the back door deals they make and all the underhanded maneuvers as they try to cut it down again and again. Politics are ruthless and don't kid yourself that Fred and pals are behind every one of the tricks those fools pull.
Thats right...fools...pull
Let's see ... it is going to take less than a month to ramrod the Edgewater through a myriad of committees, change a whole slew of longstanding laws, and even create a whole new TIF district in order to hand-out $16 million (of which the developer will repay ONLY $6 million, per Gromacki's/City's report of Nov. 10, 2009).
ReplyDeleteBut, on the other hand, it has taken several months for Maniaci to simply print out her emails. (How many emails are there anyway??)
This whole process stinks to high heaven.
Alder Maniaci shouldn't forget any messages that might be found later in pretrial discovery.
ReplyDeleteDeleting emails isn't the way to go. Those computer forensic guys are pretty sharp.
Ooops, my apology, it was 6 weeks, not months - it was a error due to me being in a rush to go on vacation. In my opinion, anything longer than 2 weeks, especially on something timely, is unacceptable.
ReplyDelete