What the City said is, there are no retention periods for keeping documents and in some cases, rejected bids are returned to the Vendor. Well in essence, the City Policy in place now appears to be a license to steal? All needed at this point is for an Invoice/ Bill/ Account Payable to show up from any source; possibly have to be approved by the Council for Payment and funds are out the door. Than under the NO retention rule, the payment due document is destroyed and ergo, someone has the bucks and no document to support the payment?
On the surface, there would be little or no expectation that anyone would go back to review a properly paid account? This could require at least one person but best probably with two? Am I spitting into the wind? Until a process is shown that would support payments being made now and/ or in the past are verifiable, I am going to say this is a very plausible event? But I want to be very clear; at this point I am NOT saying any person(s) has done to my knowledge anything in the scenario I just pointed out. However, based on some situations going back to 2011, I must admit some suspicions?
When I asked about the three bidders on the new phone system, they did not have the bid packets from ANY of the three to include the winner of the project. Only later and another FOIA request did they suddenly come up with the "Proposals" for the project from the winning company and payment City Invoices. It is my allegation the City went back to the "winning" company and got documentation from them after the fact? It is called "back dating" in simple terms. I ran into some of this in the Philippines until it backfired on them. And is NOT the first time a FOIA response had suspicious dates?
It is the position of one Agency that it "shall advise and assist in the establishment of programs for the selection and preservation of essential local records". For the City Officials who do not understand, "Local record" means a record of a county, city, town, authority or any public corporation or political entity whether organized and existing under charter or under general law unless the record is designated or treated as a state record under state law".
The above clearly shows the opportunity to establish a "viable" and "Truthful" set of City Records. As of this point per the City, there is nothing established. The lack of an established system to a prudent person would beg the question that the City is not interested in being "discoverable" in its dealings? There were records being maintained at the Public Works Department; but don't know now. They were supposedly the unit that handled the phone update? And I have previously commented on how they got an update for a phone system under a "Construction" rational?
The above would clearly call into question AND legality of the disappearance OR non retention of documents that:
1. Protect the City from any liability be it frivolous or legitimate in its claim.
2. Provide the Citizenry the opportunity to request under the FOIA Law clear and unimpeded access to documents that should by their nature be of ongoing interest and intent for the above to monitor and oversee the activities on an ongoing basis of the Elected and Appointed Employees of the City; this of course being Vienna.
§8-10-3. Powers and duties of recorder.
It shall be the duty of the recorder of every municipality to keep the journal of the proceedings of the governing body thereof, and he shall have charge of and preserve the records of the municipality.
This would not allow for the destruction of Primary documents IN ANY FORM. But would clearly obligate the safe storage AND availability upon need/ request?
A prudent person could easily question but that the consolidation of the positions of City Recorder AND Council Recorder is actually a hindrance to the above? It could also be questioned but that this allows for a complete lack of legal oversight in any form? Documents could and would be destroyed immediately upon passing through any actions by the City Council if that was the intent of a very few people? Those being I would think the Mayor, the City/ Council Recorder and possibly the Council Treasurer? On the surface, it could appear the City Treasurer is what is called the "sacrificial lamb"?
At this point in time, it appears documents are disappearing and unlocatable upon request via FOIAs under the first attempt? Two very provable scenarios are the FOIA for the 7 April 911 call; and the above referenced Telephone upgrade. Second or third attempts appear to result in the locating of requested and even supporting documents? Why not on first try? A need to find or have documents constructed? Attempts to hide the Truth?
Are/ were these just one of a kind issues? No, there were found because of an attempt to follow and utilize a Federal/ State law for what is supposed to be openness and transparency in Government. Mr. Rapp as did Mr. Obama made huge point on his Administration being open and transparent in all matters. Instead, opaque would be called a miracle day?
Truly as Heads of a level of Governance; can see little or no noticeable difference between the two? One at the Federal level; the other at the Local level. Same Taxation beliefs; same spend all one can get; ignore large percent if not most of Residents/ Electorate.
The more I watch and attempt to hold the City Administration accountable for its actions/ behavior; the more I believe the Governor should appoint a Judge from another part of the State to oversee the City Administration via the State Police to control City actions. And there are for sure some Judges of fantastic reputation that hold their Oaths to be the reason they sit on the bench. Laws for ALL Elected/ Appointed Employees are to be respected and obeyed; not just a momentary inconvenience to be worked around/ ignored.
Am I being too hard or unfair on the City Staff? Not the good ones who toil each day to try and do the right thing? I have great empathy for those who do things they know are not right or maybe legal but have little or no choice if they wish to protect themselves. I am accused of making the City Staff look bad. But as before, THEY make themselves look bad when iffy and questionable issues arise? Few are so ignorant that they don't know what the true parameters of their jobs are each day? And for those that are stupid; they know something they are doing is wrong but choose to do it anyway? This is not me telling anyone to do anything? The only advice I could offer is "do your jobs". Than to make it easier for them I would offer four more words " NO Cronyism, Favoritism or Nepotism".
As I have said before "loose as a goose". 'nuff said