Oregon City County Manager’s Association Listserv Messages

Oregon City County Manager’s Association Listserv (OCCMA)

There will people who will want to know how and why we were able (or wanted) to get these documents. So, here is a brief overview.

At a Lafayette Planning Commission meeting, our city administrator, Diane Rinks, stated that she had posted a question on the listserv regarding how many cities require developers in their area to set aside park space as part of the permit process. She said she only heard back from three cities. Darrell Flood asked which cities. Because if Diane was using them as a basis for the discussion, he wanted to make sure that comparable cities were being used. Diane’s response? "I am not going to respond to questions from …the public" The dots denote a pause, not deleted information. This has been a general theme from our city administrator. We ask questions, and she tells us that she will not answer them. At other times, she says just make an appointment with her, she does not want to answer them at the council meetings. But, staff time costs $10.00 for every half hour.

I requested the listserv postings from the city, so I could find out which cities responded. Not knowing when she asked the listserv, I requested the time period I thought it occurred. I was given a bill from the Assistant City Administrator for $670.00 and a timeline of 11.16 weeks. She is only allowed to spend three hours a week responding to requests. And it would take her 33.5 hours so she could review any information in the 1006 (although I have only been able to find 846 for that time period) to see what needed to be redacted. Keep in mind, this is a public (or private, depending on how you look at it – at least publicly funded) blog.

So, I decided I would go directly to the source. The OCCMA. Their selling point of the membership is listserv access. So, I read the bylaws, and by their meaning, for $50.00, I could become a Cooperating Member. I had an interest in the city. Was looking to improve things for citizens here and had no problem with their code of ethics. Actually, I firmly believe they should be enforced.

So, after going through a series of question and answer periods with the OCCMA Manager, Joanne Gelfi, I was finally admitted. I got my answer. And a lot more. In fact, there were so many messages, public documents, that came from these publicly paid city administrators to read. It was amazing to me. Because our city administrator tells our council all the things she does not have time to do. But, she has time to wade through and become part of all of this.

There are items that we found particularly insulting. Like when they refer to their citizens in demeaning ways. And discuss how they can make it more difficult for citizens to get public information. How they feel about media representatives. Throughout these postings, several members have reminded each other this is a public document arena. Yet these administrators continued to post such extremely unprofessional statements.

So, we decided this was too important not to share.

I believe that before public money is spent on something, the staff needs to prove it will have value to the people who are paying for it.

This listserv is something all of these people could have started, to do on their time off, free of charge on a google groups page. Not using public money to fund this particular project. The League of Oregon Cities had their attorney write a column on the correct responses to public requests for information. (See the attached article on the right – special attention to the last paragraph.) He even went so far as to say as some of these citizens use the requests to embarrass their public officials. With postings like what is contained on the OCCMA listserv, these citizens do not have to embarrass their cities. Their city administrators do a fine job on their own. I think their citizens would just like to see the administrators stop embarrassing themselves.

So, maybe making it prohibitively expensive and time consuming to get documents at the local level is a good idea. Because if Diane had not created such an antiquated policy that made it so difficult to get the information to a single question, we would not have been able to share all of this with you.

Our hope is that all cities (and maybe even the OCCMA) will truly make their records public (free of charge and available to all). But, until that happens, we continue to have to fight to see what is going on.

I encourage you to peruse the postings. Investigate. Ask questions. Find out what your dollars are being spent on. Ask why a publicly funded listserv is spending money on a database that is locked away from public view.

ICMA Code of Ethics

THE PURPOSE of the International City/County Management Association is to increase the proficiency of city managers, county managers, and other municipal administrators and to strengthen the quality of urban government through professional management. To further these objectives, certain ethical principles shall govern the conduct of every member of the International City/County Management Association, who shall:

1. Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic local government by responsible elected officials and believe that professional general management is essential to the achievement of this objective.

2. Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a constructive, creative and practical attitude toward urban affairs and a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant.

3. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officials, of other officials and employees, and of the public.

4. Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve the best interests of all of the people.

5. Submit policy proposals to elected officials, provide them with facts and advice on matters of policy as a basis for making decisions and setting community goals, and uphold and implement municipal policies adopted by elected officials.

6. Recognize that elected representatives of the people are entitled to the credit for the establishment of municipal policies; responsibility for policy execution rests with the members.

7. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of the employing legislative body, and from all partisan political activities which would impair performance as a professional administrator.

8. Make it a duty continually to improve the member's professional ability and to develop the competence of associates in the use of management techniques.

9. Keep the community informed on municipal affairs; encourage communication between the citizens and all municipal officers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public service.

10. Resist any encroachment on professional responsibilities, believing the member should be free to carry out official policies without interference, and handle each problem without discrimination on the basis of principle and justice.

11. Handle all matters of personnel on the basis of merit so that fairness and impartiality govern a member's decisions, pertaining to appointments, pay adjustments, promotions and discipline.

12. Seek no favor; believe that personal aggrandizement or profit secured by information or by misuse of public time is dishonest.

Article from League of Oregon Cities "Local Focus"

LEGAL QUESTION OF THE MONTH

How Should Cities Handle Public

Records Requests?

Q: We have a citizen who really “enjoys” using the

public records law to request all sorts of city records

including time sheets and personnel evaluations. These

requests are becoming very costly for our staff to fulfill

since many of the requests are referred to our city attorney,

who advises us as to whether or not the records must be

disclosed. We have implemented a fee schedule for any

copies of records but are unsure what documents are open

for public inspection and which are not. Doesn’t someone

have to have certain justification to demand the right to

inspect these files? And what is the time frame for fulfilling

these requests?

A: Oregon’s public records law is now 35 years old and

Oregon cities are, and have been even before the advent

of the law, making their records readily accessible to all

citizens. The law grants a right to every citizen to inspect

any public record unless an exemption from disclosure exists.

These exemptions may cause confusion or uncertainty

in responding to requests, and with this uncertainty or with

the vagueness or broadness of the request, costs to respond

are increased.

Inspection of public records have become a way of life for

some citizens and short of convincing them to get a different

life, these citizens will continue to exercise their rights

and cities will continue to respond in a reasonable manner.

Reasonableness is the key in measuring a city’s obligations—

the law granting the right to inspect public records is

tempered by the city’s obligation to respond by providing a

“reasonable” opportunity to inspect without “unreasonable”

delay.

Oregon’s public records law was amended in the last legislative

session in a way that may assist in resolving the problems

reflected in the above question. These changes define

an opportunity for cities to respond to records requests in a

systematized and consistent manner. While these recently

adopted amendments mirror how many cities were already

responding to requests, the amendments require all cities to

establish a process to respond to requests, including unreasonable

requests.

The new law (amendments to ORS 192.440) requires cities

to adopt a written procedure for making and responding to

record requests. The procedure must include the names of

persons where requests are to be made and how fees will be

charged for responding to requests. Examples of procedures

adopted by cities may be found in the League’s A-Z index

under “R” for Records.

The new law provides that cities are to respond to records

requests “as soon as practicable and without unreasonable

delay.” Before responding, a city may request additional

information or clarification from the citizen making the

request. The city may then respond in one of several specified

ways: by providing the records for inspection or copying

unless they are exempted from disclosure (the number and

type of exemptions remain relatively unchanged) or by stating

the city does not have the records. If the city has the

records, it may, before providing copies or the opportunity

to inspect them, provide a response to the requestor estimating

the time and fees for disclosure and that either the records

will be provided within a reasonable time or that the fees must

be paid before the records will be made available. If the city is

uncertain that it possesses the records, it may respond that a

search will be made and an appropriate response will be made as

soon as practicable.

The above question reflects an uncertainty as to what records

are exempt from disclosure. When a city develops its fee

schedule, it may include a fee for the cost of time spent by an

attorney in reviewing the records to redact material or segregate

the records into exempt and nonexempt records. Otherwise, an

excellent resource for making determinations as to how to apply

exemptions is the Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings

Manual. The manual was recently updated and republished

this year and can be obtained by calling (503) 378-2992.

In general, justification, motive or need of persons requesting

records is irrelevant—except for those few and limited conditional

exemptions that allow consideration of those factors.

Genuinely concerned citizens, persons having a commercial

interest in the records or seeking to embarrass the city, or citizens

without a life, all have the same rights in reviewing public

records.

The LOC Legal Services Program is not a substitute for local

legal representation and is not intended to serve as your city’s legal

counsel, but rather to provide informational, research, and inquiry

services. Contact: Paul Nolte, (503) 588-6550 or (800) 452-0338

phone; (503) 399-4863 fax; or law@ashlandhome.net.

Read the rest of the Local Focus right here!