This week, Sean Cockerham and Alaska AP both wrote pieces on the Alaska Democratic Party's long and continued wait for their records request...Per AP:
Public records requested more than a year ago for Palin's e-mails still haven't been provided by the state, and Alaska Democratic Party Chairwoman Patti Higgins said she thinks officials are trying to hide something.
"I think this is a travesty of justice," Higgins told the Anchorage Daily News.
Public records in Alaska are supposed to be provided within 10 days, but the state can extend the deadline for complicated requests. State officials said it's taking a lot of time to process the request for e-mails because so many were sought.
According to both articles, the request includes emails to and from the governor with various keywords, including "Monegan" and "Wooten". This betrays the date of the request which was September 2008, in the thick of the Troopergate investigation.
However, in Cockerham's article he adds this:
Democratic Party Chairwoman Higgins said she'll meet with the Alaska Civil Liberties Union to see if the ACLU would be willing to file a lawsuit seeking to force the state to produce the records, which she requested on Sept. 22, 2008. State officials said her request involves reviewing about 21,000 documents.
Higgins said she also worries the state will black out much of the information and charge large fees. "The other threat that the state is giving us is that this may cost us up to half a million dollars," she said, promising to sue if that turns out to be the case.
You wonderful folks whose money paid for our yet undelivered record's request have been incredibly patient, especially considering the conflicting issues between advocacy and reporting/blogging: I can't always write about "behind the scenes" activities. I have had conversations and email traffic with advisors over the months regarding this and I'm unable as yet to talk about things still in the works. However, there is some news.
As a reminder, this is where we stood as of July 2nd, the last contact I had with the Department of Administration regarding this records request (click the letter for a larger, easier-to-read copy):
After the Cockerham/AP articles, it was suggested that I write a letter to Mr. David Jones, the lawyer from the Attorney General's office quoted in both articles.
(Disclaimer: I do not believe FOR ONE SECOND that the Democratic Party should pay a single cent for their records request. I just used the information to highlight the differences.)
Mr. Jones:
I saw the quotes from you in the Associated Press story on the Democratic Party emails and was struck by several things:
a) The Democratic Party has not paid you anything for their emails, and
b) You send them regular notification that extensions have been granted.
My public records request has not been in the works for as long as the one they submitted. However:
1) I sent a money order (receipt acknowledged in the attached July 2nd letter) for $5,552.64 to the Department of Administration for my records request to be completed.
2) Only parts 3 and 4 were sent (see letter) which was only two pages and was a record request itself, which made it unnecessary to search for it. The previous emails describing what the money would pay for makes that fact very clear.
3) The money was to search for parts 1 and 2 (again, see letter). I have heard nothing about it.
4) I have also received nothing from your office or the Department of Administration stating that any extension has been granted.
5) My request only covers a five employees' email accounts and about 10 months of time.
It seems to me that the Department of Administration is in violation of AS 40.25, which requires the agency to provide the information within 10 days of receiving the requested fees. As it is now October and the money was received before July 2nd, I wonder if this also may qualify as a breech of contract, since I have not received the product for which I've already paid?
This email is to request a response from your office.
Thank you for your attention.
Linda Kellen
aka: Linda Kellen Biegel
Note: I purposely did not send any letters or "reminders" to the Department of Administration over the last several months regarding the records request because I wanted to see how long it took them to request an extension...THEY NEVER DID. (I didn't want to tell you guys either because, yes, they still monitor this website.)
Yesterday, I received this letter from Michelle Fabrello of the Department of Administration in response to my communication to the Attorney General's office:
First off, these are emails between the Governor's Office and two members of the media...a gossip columnist and a buffoon. I have searched and searched the list of exempted records from AS 40.25.140 and found not ONE SINGLE CATEGORY where those emails could fit WITHIN REASON even if they used petroleum jelly and a shoehorn.
Secondly, I like how THEY lay out my options. They say that I "could treat the failure to respond" to the request as "a denial" and appeal "to Governor Parnell or to superior court."
Actually, I am much more likely to view the entire process THIS WAY:
AS 40.25.125. Enforcement: Injunctive Relief.
A person having custody or control of a public record who denies, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or a person not having custody or control who aids or abets another person in denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of a public record subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120 may be enjoined by the superior court from denying, obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, the inspection of public records subject to inspection under AS 40.25.110 or 40.25.120. A person may seek injunctive relief under this section without exhausting the person's remedies under AS 40.25.123 - 40.25.124.
I have some serious work ahead of me before I respond to this letter.
I look forward to your comments, suggestions, advice and rantings!
|
