"Candidate requests," it says.
That's a lie.
It is an officially sanctioned lie made with the knowledge and without the objection of our current city council.
The fact is, despite its headline, that webpage only shows the requests made by (and information provided in response to) challenging candidates. Incumbent candidates do not have their requests publicized here. Not only is that treatment unfair, the City is lying about what it is doing, clearly in an attempt to obfuscate its unequal treatment.
Despite me having requested to receive the same information for incumbent candidates, the City has provided me nothing.
What could possibly be the point of publicizing the requests and answers for challenger candidates but not incumbent candidates and misrepresenting the action to boot? Well, it's pretty obvious, don't you think?
Accommodating this deceit are our illustrious incumbent city council representatives. Here they are, followed by the names of their challengers.
INCUMBENTS:
Mayor Robbie Perkins
At-large: Marikay Abuzuaiter, Yvonne Johnson and Nancy Vaughan
District 1: T. Dianne Bellamy-Small
District 2: Jim Kee
District 3: Zack Matheny
District 4: Nancy Hoffman
District 5: Tony Carmany
NON-INCUMBENT CHALLENGERS:
Mayor: George Hartzman
At-large: Mike Barber, Jean Brown, Katei Cranford, Ben Holder, Joseph Landis, Chris Lawyer and Marlando Pridgen
District 1: Sharon Hightower and Tigress McDaniel
District 2: Jamal Fox
District 3: Corey Pysher and Wendell Roth
District 4: Bill Knight and John Alexander Underwood
District 5: Sal Leone and Alex Seymor
I too, made the same request as you and have also received nothing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a spy program started by the City for current council members. Its too bad City Staff were not working for Nixon, they could of made spying legal.
ReplyDeleteWhat you said might sound crazy, Sal, except that the City Manager also said that city staff have been advised "to notify the City Manager's office of all requests made of them by candidates."
ReplyDeleteI am shocked the local media has not made an issue of this. The council wants to know what I am interested in but I can't know what they are looking into, sounds one way. And no council member has stood up and complained like they did a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I got the letter from the city manager today.
ReplyDeleteBasically, they can answer, but need to tell us. Really?
"I am shocked the local media has not made an issue of this"
ReplyDeleteThat would require journalists with integrity, an extinct species around these parts.
Sal, in case they were otherwise unaware, it has been brought to the attention of Yes!Weekly's editor Brian Clarey and the News & Record's editor Jeff Gauger.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that its no big deal to the media. They seem to jump on GPD for spying on the public and now the City wants to spy on candidates and its ok now to do.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with my PIRT being public but I want the same material council gets
Exactly, Sal. The unequal treatment is objectionable as is the City Manager's request of staff to be notified when candidates make requests.
ReplyDeleteDid you really call me Tony Carmany?
ReplyDeleteTony Carmany? Ouch.
ReplyDelete(I was just noticing that when TW posted.)
I can understand posting the request but it seems intentionally obtuse on the part of the city. I don't see the point of publicizing the name of the person requesting the info.
Overall, I have to agree it is a strange stance for the city administration to take. Wonder who ordered it? Staff or council?
Tony,
ReplyDeleteOh, so now I have your attention?
Glad you are attuned to the important stuff.
JHS, respectfully, I think you've missed the point which, from my perspective, is not whether or not the city posts the names of the candidates making requests (which is, after all, public record) but that they are publishing this page for challenging candidates only while non-incumbent candidates do not receive the same scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, it's completely backwards from what one would expect, where those already elected and with the obligations and accountability of elected office, would receive the routine scrutiny.
I think it is in the nature of being an elected official to ask the management for information so I'm not sure where you would draw the outline of determining what emails from council to staff you would want published.
ReplyDeleteThe publication of Sal's email address is not necessary to fulfilling the spirit of public records law. Since he is not a public official his actions are not a matter of record.
I could understand them saying they are publishing challenger requests so that no challenger has access to information not available to all, but it still comes across as very strange.
When I ran for office in my small town it was clear that the favored challengers had been given data and stats to use in debates that could only have come from staff or the elected incumbents. Things like percent increase in spending on issue X or total dollars cut over four years from department Y.
Again, I would be interested in an explanation from staff as to why they are posting the emails and not just the request itself and to know if there is precedent across the country and from where GSO took the idea.
I think the intent is to dissuade requests.
If you send an email to the city, your email address becomes public record.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Roch, I said it was unnecessary to publish his name and email address. No one has requested the information and the city has decided pro se to publish it. It's unusual for a city to take such an proactive approach to transparency, especially when they have gone to such length to avoid releasing information in the past.
ReplyDeleteDidactic lesson on public records theory aside, I would be interested in the answers to the questions I posed above about rationale.
The citizenry would benefit more from the pursuit of concrete answers as opposed to so much posturing on broad themes. The mechanics of power is not about broad themes. It is about structural detail. One that it understood it can be dismantled piece by piece.
Yes, I missed your point. Sorry. And I agree that a specific answer to your question would be helpful.
ReplyDelete