EatonvilleNews

Talk About Irony...

     by Dixie A. Walter
    September 16, 2004
    My View

    Irony - "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs;" The Town of Eatonville continues to break state law by refusing to even acknowledge ENN's public record requests (see below). The public information officer and lead official of the town is Mayor Bruce Rath.
    A friend, and ENN reader, noted that almost 31 months ago Rath himself was complaining that the town wasn't giving him information he requested. The town council minutes from February 25, 2002 report, "Bruce Rath addressed the Council, stating a concern he has with obtaining public information from Town Hall. He stated he had made a request for information, following up on his request twice, and that the information has not been provided. (Emphasis added.)
   "Mayor Parnell stated that the office of the Public Works Director was in complete disarray and that since assuming office Jamieson Van Eaton has made great progress in getting the office organized. The Public Works Director indicated that he was aware of the request, that he had been busily organizing the office since his arrival and that he was currently in the process of reviewing the file in order to digest it and to provide the required disclosures. "
    Author Harry J. Gensler explains the Golden Rule which "... is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures. These facts suggest that the Golden Rule may be an important moral truth.
    "The Golden Rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation. To apply it, you'd imagine yourself in the exact place of the other person on the receiving end of the action. If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.
    Apparently Bruce Rath has no imagination, or memory, and has no problem violating the Golden Rule. The minutes of February 25, 2002 also tell us, "Councilmember Jarrett acknowledged the importance of being responsive to public information requests."

Why Bother with Laws?

     by Dixie A. Walter
     September 12, 2004
     My View

     Why won't the Town of Eatonville follow state law and respond to my latest requests for public records? The only answer I can come up with is that they aren't happy with the public documents I have asked for. The town's attempt to keep information from me keeps information from you also, dear reader. As taxpayers and active citizens of this community we have every right to know what is happening with our tax dollars and other important issues facing the town.
     Up until January 2004 I had no problems with the town regarding public records. The trouble started January 16 when I personally asked to see some correspondence between then Public Works Director Jamieson Van Eaton and the town during January. I was told by then Mayor Pro-tem Ray Harper that a letter I requested was being withheld because it contained medical information and was not available as a public record.
     In fact, on January 21, I filled out a public records request form for all correspondence between Van Eaton and the town. On January 26 I was told in a letter by Town Clerk Carrie Lynn Loffelmacher that no such "correspondence" existed. (Van Eaton himself never spoke to me about this issue.) I knew this to be incorrect as a member of the staff told me the letter did, indeed, exist and there was no medical information contained in it. Nor did it contain any information which could be construed as harmful to the town. This person offered to swear to the letter's existence in a court of law.
     Also on December 12, 2003 I requested a copy of the town attorney's contract. Before the turn of the year I was told by the town clerk that she couldn't find the contract and would contact the attorney's office. Eventually I received the contract but not before I had to ask again on March 23, 2004.
     Although I had been told no correspondence existed between the town and Van Eaton, I was eventually given a copy of a letter to the town concerning Van Eaton's return to town employment. However, this was only after I explained to the town that according to state law the town could not withhold the information I was requesting, but could give the letter with private information redacted (edited/blacked out). This letter was not the letter I was requesting and to this day I have not received that particular document.
      After twice (July 26 and August 9) verbally asking the town council for the number of ERUs (water hookups) left in town, I was told to fill out a public records request form. This I did August 10 and by August 23 I still had received no answer. I again verbally asked the council for the number of ERUs and finally received an answer August 24 - two days shy of a month from my first request. At least one councilmember told me an advisory committee had also asked for the number of ERUs remaining and had not received them.

Are Laws Really Just Made to be Broken?

      Now the town has once again broken state law regarding my latest public records requests. On August 24, I requested "any and all pay vouchers and copies of all checks paid to those involved in the recent town hall remodel." As I write this it has been twelve days since that request and I have heard nothing.
      On August 30, I requested the "Site Development Plan and SEPA Checklist for the Alder Street/ Skateboard Park." This request is nine days old as of this date. And again, I have heard nothing from the town.
     State law is very specific about "Prompt responses required." RCW 42.17.320 states, in part, "Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly. Within five business days of receiving a public records request..."
     This does not necessarily mean the request must be filled within five business days, it means several things. The requesting party gets the pubic document asked for, the requesting party receives notification from the public agency that the request may take more than five days to fill, the public agency needs clarification about the records requested or the request is denied. According to the RCW, "Denials of requests must be accompanied by a written statement of the specific reasons thereof." Both the August 24 and August 30 requests are date stamped "Received...Town of Eatonville."
     Why won't the town follow the law and respond to my public records requests? Again I say, the only answer I can come up with is that someone is not happy with the requests I have made. Why do you suppose that might be?

If Eatonville Breaks State Law, Why Not Town Law Too?

   The town is also breaking their own law by insisting, for some reason, that ENN must pay for council and planning commission packets. First I received a bill saying I must pay $50 per packet, which would work out to about $200 per month. Resolution-PP of the Town of Eatonville states that "Gov/Media" is "exempt" from buying these packets. Non-government/non-media citizens are expected to pay $55 per year according to the resolution.
    When I questioned this at the August 23 council meeting, my question was not answered. After the meeting I asked the town clerk why I was being billed in this manner. She said I wasn't being billed per packet, that the reason it looked, on the invoice, as if ENN was being billed weekly, was because she was required to put the numeral "1" in front of the billing, as she was using the "Excel" program. Go figure.
    One action taken by the council on August 23 was to declare The News Tribune a secondary paper of record. Meaning that paper, as well as the Dispatch, will run legal notices for the town. It's that simple. However, the clerk told me the reason ENN was being charged was because the council took the above mentioned action.
This was a bit confusing, as the first invoice charging ENN $50 per packet (council/planning commission) is dated August 11, twelve days before the council action, which the clerk seemed to think validated her billing. On August 23 ENN was sent another invoice stating the $50 was for each packet, council and planning commission, for the entire year and to "Please disregard previous invoice."
    Because "previous invoice" (and the second invoice) obviously breaks town law, I asked Town Attorney Bob Mack if he could explain why ENN was now being charged for "packets." His answer on August 28 was: "The official newspaper ordinance amendment had to do with adding a daily newspaper as a backup to the current weekly paper of record. Whether someone's website or other publication qualifies as a newspaper or "press" wasn't the subject of the ordinance amendment, as far as I understood." So what does that mean?
    Town law says "gov/media" doesn't have to pay for governmental packets. If the town continues to deny ENN free packets, according to their laws, then the law must be changed. I think changing the law to make it more difficult for some media to obtain public information wouldn't be the best public relations move a town council could make. Oops, almost forgot: ENN is a free news source and is a community service.
    If Eatonville blatantly breaks town laws regarding pubic records, which other laws (if any) are being broken? And is breaking the law "Okay?" I believe "law-abiding" citizens in town would answer, "No." But I can't speak for everyone.
   In a nutshell: ENN asks for important public information from your town government so you don't have to do the research. (Raise your hand if you work outside your home, and don't have time to examine everything in front of your town council.) This is Information which citizens are entitled to by federal, state and town law, yet ENN is now ignored. I must ask again, "Why?" If there is nothing to hide , why does the town act as if there is something to hide? Freedom of Information - Why is that frightening to some public officials?



	Talk About Irony... by Dixie A. Walter September 16, 2004 My View Irony - "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs;" The Town of Eatonville continues to break state law by refusing to even acknowledge ENN's public record requests (see below). The public information officer and lead official of the town is Mayor Bruce Rath. A friend, and ENN reader, noted that almost 31 months ago Rath himself was complaining that the town wasn't giving him information he requested. The town council minutes from February 25, 2002 report, "Bruce Rath addressed the Council, stating a concern he has with obtaining public information from Town Hall. He stated he had made a request for information, following up on his request twice, and that the information has not been provided. (Emphasis added.) "Mayor Parnell stated that the office of the Public Works Director was in complete disarray and that since assuming office Jamieson Van Eaton has made great progress in getting the office organized. The Public Works Director indicated that he was aware of the request, that he had been busily organizing the office since his arrival and that he was currently in the process of reviewing the file in order to digest it and to provide the required disclosures. " Author Harry J. Gensler explains the Golden Rule which "... is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures. These facts suggest that the Golden Rule may be an important moral truth. "The Golden Rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation. To apply it, you'd imagine yourself in the exact place of the other person on the receiving end of the action. If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule. Apparently Bruce Rath has no imagination, or memory, and has no problem violating the Golden Rule. The minutes of February 25, 2002 also tell us, "Councilmember Jarrett acknowledged the importance of being responsive to public information requests." Why Bother with Laws? by Dixie A. Walter September 12, 2004 My View Why won't the Town of Eatonville follow state law and respond to my latest requests for public records? The only answer I can come up with is that they aren't happy with the public documents I have asked for. The town's attempt to keep information from me keeps information from you also, dear reader. As taxpayers and active citizens of this community we have every right to know what is happening with our tax dollars and other important issues facing the town. Up until January 2004 I had no problems with the town regarding public records. The trouble started January 16 when I personally asked to see some correspondence between then Public Works Director Jamieson Van Eaton and the town during January. I was told by then Mayor Pro-tem Ray Harper that a letter I requested was being withheld because it contained medical information and was not available as a public record. In fact, on January 21, I filled out a public records request form for all correspondence between Van Eaton and the town. On January 26 I was told in a letter by Town Clerk Carrie Lynn Loffelmacher that no such "correspondence" existed. (Van Eaton himself never spoke to me about this issue.) I knew this to be incorrect as a member of the staff told me the letter did, indeed, exist and there was no medical information contained in it. Nor did it contain any information which could be construed as harmful to the town. This person offered to swear to the letter's existence in a court of law. Also on December 12, 2003 I requested a copy of the town attorney's contract. Before the turn of the year I was told by the town clerk that she couldn't find the contract and would contact the attorney's office. Eventually I received the contract but not before I had to ask again on March 23, 2004. Although I had been told no correspondence existed between the town and Van Eaton, I was eventually given a copy of a letter to the town concerning Van Eaton's return to town employment. However, this was only *after* I explained to the town that according to state law the town could not withhold the information I was requesting, but could give the letter with private information redacted (edited/blacked out). This letter was not the letter I was requesting and to this day I have not received that particular document. After twice (July 26 and August 9) verbally asking the town council for the number of ERUs (water hookups) left in town, I was told to fill out a public records request form. This I did August 10 and by August 23 I still had received no answer. I again verbally asked the council for the number of ERUs and finally received an answer August 24 - two days shy of a month from my first request. At least one councilmember told me an advisory committee had also asked for the number of ERUs remaining and had not received them. Are Laws Really Just Made to be Broken? Now the town has once again broken state law regarding my latest public records requests. On August 24, I requested "any and all pay vouchers and copies of all checks paid to those involved in the recent town hall remodel." As I write this it has been twelve days since that request and I have heard nothing. On August 30, I requested the "Site Development Plan and SEPA Checklist for the Alder Street/ Skateboard Park." This request is nine days old as of this date. And again, I have heard nothing from the town. *State law is very specific* about "Prompt responses required." RCW 42.17.320 states, in part, "Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly. Within five business days of receiving a public records request..." This does not necessarily mean the request must be filled within five business days, it means several things. The requesting party gets the pubic document asked for, the requesting party receives notification from the public agency that the request may take more than five days to fill, the public agency needs clarification about the records requested or the request is denied. According to the RCW, "Denials of requests must be accompanied by a written statement of the specific reasons thereof." Both the August 24 and August 30 requests are date stamped "Received...Town of Eatonville." Why won't the town follow the law and respond to my public records requests? Again I say, the only answer I can come up with is that someone is not happy with the requests I have made. Why do you suppose that might be? If Eatonville Breaks State Law, Why Not Town Law Too? The town is also breaking their own law by insisting, for some reason, that ENN must pay for council and planning commission packets. First I received a bill saying I must pay $50 per packet, which would work out to about $200 per month. Resolution-PP of the Town of Eatonville states that "Gov/Media" is "exempt" from buying these packets. Non-government/non-media citizens are expected to pay $55 per year according to the resolution. When I questioned this at the August 23 council meeting, my question was not answered. After the meeting I asked the town clerk why I was being billed in this manner. She said I wasn't being billed per packet, that the reason it looked, on the invoice, as if ENN was being billed weekly, was because she was required to put the numeral "1" in front of the billing, as she was using the "Excel" program. Go figure. One action taken by the council on August 23 was to declare The News Tribune a secondary paper of record. Meaning that paper, as well as the Dispatch, will run legal notices for the town. It's that simple. However, the clerk told me the reason ENN was being charged was because the council took the above mentioned action. This was a bit confusing, as the first invoice charging ENN $50 per packet (council/planning commission) is dated August 11, twelve days before the council action, which the clerk seemed to think validated her billing. On August 23 ENN was sent another invoice stating the $50 was for each packet, council and planning commission, for the entire year and to "Please disregard previous invoice." Because "previous invoice" (and the second invoice) obviously breaks town law, I asked Town Attorney Bob Mack if he could explain why ENN was now being charged for "packets." His answer on August 28 was: "The official newspaper ordinance amendment had to do with adding a daily newspaper as a backup to the current weekly paper of record. Whether someone's website or other publication qualifies as a newspaper or "press" wasn't the subject of the ordinance amendment, as far as I understood." So what does that mean? Town law says "gov/media" doesn't have to pay for governmental packets. If the town continues to deny ENN free packets, according to their laws, then the law must be changed. I think changing the law to make it more difficult for some media to obtain public information wouldn't be the best public relations move a town council could make. Oops, almost forgot: ENN is a free news source and is a community service. If Eatonville blatantly breaks town laws regarding pubic records, which other laws (if any) are being broken? And is breaking the law "Okay?" I believe "law-abiding" citizens in town would answer, "No." But I can't speak for everyone. In a nutshell: ENN asks for important public information from your town government so you don't have to** do the research. (Raise your hand if you work outside your home, and don't have time to examine everything in front of your town council.) This is Information which citizens are entitled to by federal, state and town law, yet ENN is now ignored. I must ask again, "Why?" If there is nothing to hide , why does the town act as if there is something to hide? Freedom of Information - Why is that frightening to some public officials? Back to Top Back to Front Page





	© 2002 Eatonvillenews.net We Care!