A fascinating and important email exchange between Mr. Muse and Mr. Gailey.  I would need at least a roomful of in agreement lawyers to confirm for me why why why why WHY….on earth the city manager can not minimally state for the public record if Mr. Wing’s report included any, all, or none of Ms. Smith’s specific concerns or charges that led to the city paid investigation.  No detail, no specifics, just some worthy, miniscule chum to keep us fish at bay.  That does not seem like a lot to ask legally or otherwise.
The overall and related issues do not end, they just rewind and continue, perhaps until more new blood emerges on city council and takes on the role as public advocates they were elected to admin.

What’s Up,

There may not be any need to sit down and talk. You can file a “Freedom of Information Act Request” at no cost. The information is found here: http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=pt1#b

There is no cost, or perhaps a very reasonable cost for preparing the paperwork.

Costs might start arising when the city denies your right to see any information at all, in which case a) they are bluffing and hoping you won’t push the issue, and b) they hope you won’t spend the money necessary to hire a lawyer.

Two things are clear to me. The first is that the “powers that be” can’t simply continue to deny answering every single question pertaining to this case on the basis that it is privileged information. Secondly, the lawyer’s assertion that further “nosing around” will result in legal action is pure, unadulterated BS; this is a public figure. As such, most of the information regarding the case is probably largely public record. The bluffing is based on the belief that no one will have the guts to continue pushing. Remember: usually in the beginning of a situation like this, legal decisions are being made by folks who have no right to make them and no knowledge of what is and is not public information, so if you really start digging, at some point someone with real legal knowledge will have to be brought in to assess whether information is the public’s or not. Don’t give up after one “no.”

It is my opinion that a combination of utilizing local media to the fullest extent possible and a FOIA request would see some results. I think the question will come down to simply how much time does someone have to pursue the case, and how much push-back does one have the stomach for. Most of these situations - and I have no dog in the hunt and don’t know much (admittedly) about the situation - come down to a public figure or figures, protected by a few lawyers - throwing up a ton of seemingly complicated roadblocks to keep you (the public) confused and nervous enough about retaliation that you let the situation slip away.

As someone who has filed requests before, my advice would be to first, have a very clear and simple set of questions that set up your hypothesis. In other words, instead of just saying, “Tell us everything!”, you should come up with a few specific questions that you want answered. Again - I don’t know much about the situation, but just the fact that Mr. Gailey refuses to answer even the most basic of questions regarding this case makes me nervous.

Also, be patient, and know that you’re never going to get the whole story. But you may be able to piece together enough info to unearth something real if you push hard enough.

Good luck.
Mike

Not that I’m a lawyer or anything, but I used the amazing powers of the internet to pull up the statue Mr. Gailey is using to justify the non-disclosure of the report.  The section they site says:

(5) Complaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action. If disciplinary action is taken, the final written decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline. The decision must state the conduct or other facts on the basis of which disciplinary action is being imposed and the conclusions of the acting authority as to the reasons for that action.

(and here is the part I don’t understand)

If an arbitrator completely overturns or removes disciplinary action from an employee personnel file, the final written decision is public except that the employee’s name must be deleted from the final written decision and kept confidential. If the employee whose name was deleted from the final written decision discloses that the employee is the person who is the subject of the final written decision, the entire final written report, with regard to that employee, is public.

Wouldn’t that make Deb Smith’s report the accusation of misconduct.  Then wouldn’t his paid-leave constitute the disciplinary action.  Wouldn’t the two reports represent the final written decision on this matter?  If so, then aren’t they, by the law they site to withhold the records, public records?

Does that make sense?

Dana will be back to work on Monday.

I’m beginning to think that a bunch of citizen should get together and talk about filing a freedom of information suits. Anyone interested in sitting down to talk about it?

Not releasing the report to the citizens who paid for it is so wrong-headed. And Dana Anderson needs to remember that he is a public figure as far as the law is concerned.

Dana Anderson hired Gailey at a very young age and groomed him to be what he is today. It is quite obvious that Gailey is unable to run this City objectively. This has gone on long enough. It is time for the council to put this mess behind us. City employees have lost all confidence in Gailey and his management team at Silly Hall!! The rank and file had hoped that Gailey, when hired as the manager, would have a mind of his own and correct issues that needed to be corrected. That never happened.

Every City employee knows that Dana Anderson is The Great OZ behind the curtain.

Mr. Gailey’s writing skills are a bit disheartening.

“based on these where solely based”
“the letter is being held in confidential”
“the report was based off from the letter”
“brings me to close to the line”

Zipper: It is impossible to answer any of your simple questions, as it was Mr Muse’s.  While I want to answer them, and feel it is the right thing to do, I have been advised by legal counsel to continue stone walling and deny any and all responsibility.  It has served me well for the last three months and I continue to remain employed, while the 5 fired employees are still out of their jobs.  I must be doing something right.  I’m thinking this is how a response might read….what do you all think?

1) Do we know how much the city spent on this consultant’s report?
2) Do we seriously need to file suit to get this information out of the city?
3) Why isn’t Deb Smith releasing this information? Is there some agreement with her to keep it confidential?
4) Has anyone asked how long Smith’s letter was, compared to how long the Wing report is?