One of the obligations of being a some-time critic of City government is, I believe, to also write about things that go right. I still have an outstanding disagreement with the City over the release of public records, but a request for records I submitted this week was answered with impressive swiftness and the documents reassuringly demonstrate a city department being careful about spending taxpayer money.
This week's City Council meeting included on the agenda a request to approve payment of $728,229.90 to trash hauler Republic of NC for economic loss, a result of the City annexing areas where Republic currently collects trash from paying customers. State law allows garbage collectors to receive compensation for this kind of loss as a cash payment equivalent to 15 months of lost income from the affected areas. The payment was approved by city council.
Part of my interest was inspired by a misreading of the agenda item. It describes the annexation as "12 areas." I mistakenly read that as "12 acres" which had me wondering how 15 months of revenue for a mere 12 acres of homes could result in a payment of $728,229.90. In fact, the 12 areas accounted for thousands of customers.
Companies seeking compensation for this kind of economic loss are required to submit detailed documentation to substantiate their claim of loss. I submitted a request for this documentation to Pat Boswell, Director of Public Affairs. Within 10 minutes, she replied that she had received my request. In less than 24 hours, I had the information I had requested forwarded to me by Pat's assistant, Cindy Briggs, and Field Operations Communications Manager Nancy Lindemeyer. Nancy also promptly replied to my follow up questions.
Here is the bottom line: Republic of NC complied with the documentation requirements and the staff of Field Operations verified it through a variety of means. One may not like that these annexations carried this kind of expense, but it was required by law and the amount was carefully substantiated by city staff. Kudos to Pat, Cindy and Nancy for a swift and thorough response to a records request. It allowed this citizen to report good things about the city.
Roch: I am trying to send you an email but it keeps bouncing back. Please email me.
ReplyDeleteJeff
jeffreyhsykes A.T. gmail
I always felt the same way Roch. If you are going to give people Hell then you must be equally prompt with praise. I try hard to do this. I only wish with our city fathers that I could do it more often. BB
ReplyDeleteyou do know its a wast of time to run a record on some one running for office if thay have not live here more than a year due to there is nothing to pull plus due to you dont use there ssn the info you get is 90% wrong always due to it pulls any one who has the same name and you get one wrong bio with 40 peoples info on it. i had some one when i was living in ny pull my info due to i was running for office, thay printed i had a drug charge when i did not so i took them to court and got $145.000 from the person who ran it then 7.000.000 from the paper due to it lost my job and the race and more but i got there ass good. no joke its a fact and true. now i love it due to i have money and live in flo on there cash
ReplyDeleteroch, this was in under the dome today thought you might like to see it,
ReplyDeletePublic records bill clears hurdle
Submitted by bkrueger on July 8, 2008 - 1:15pm.
Tags: Dan Clodfelter | David Hoyle | hospitals | N.C. Association of Broadcasters | N.C. Press Association | public records | Tony Rand | Under the Dome
Legislation that would require state and local governments to pay reasonable legal fees when they lose a public records lawsuit cleared a Senate judiciary committee today after an attempt to gut the bill.
State law currently gives the courts limited discretion to not award legal fees to people and businesses who win public records lawsuits if the governmental agency showed substantial justification to deny records. Open government advocates say judges have largely used that discretion to prevent or limit the awarding of legal fees, reports Dan Kane.
"It hasn't operated as people thought it should and it has cost some of the smaller papers in the state a lot of money to protect their rights," said Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, a Fayetteville Democrat.
State Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat, offered an amendment that would have left that standard in place. He said the current law, passed in 2005, had not been given a chance to prove its effectiveness.
"It was negotiated in good faith," Clodfelter said. "What I don't like about the bill is that is going to be thrown out the window."
Representatives of county and municipal governments and public hospitals supported the amendment, while representatives of the N.C. Press Association and N.C. Association of Broadcasters urged its defeat.
A majority of senators voted the amendment down in a voice vote and then gave the legislation a favorable report. It now goes to the Senate Finance Committee.
The legislation, filed by state Sen. David Hoyle, a Gaston County Democrat, also creates an open government section within the state Attorney General's office to educate public officials about the state's open records and open meetings laws. The unit would also mediate disputes.
Hi Tarheez,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. I had heard of thi proposed legislation before and made Sen. David Hoyle of our request in encouraging him to push this forward. I'm glad to see it is making progress.