This post is a great example why no one should believe a single thing they are told by Beachwood City Council without independantly verifying everything they say.
Below is an email where a Beachwood resident points out that Mel Jacob's claim that responding to records requests is costing the city $100k a year is a lie and intentionally misleading.
It is funny and ironic that a public records request for overtime records was used to prove that Mel was lying when he said these requests cost $100k a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Burkons [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Beachwood Public Records Issue
Dear Mayor Gorden and City of Beachwood Councilmembers,
It has been a few days since the Monday night Council Meeting when Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Mintz, Mr. Goodman and Mr. Wacht expressed their disdain for the volume of public records request the City of Beachwood receives (Click here to read the article). This attitude is problematic and after some thought I decided to respond with this email.
Since May of 2013, there have been multiple examples where the media obtained information from public
records requests to enlighten residents about the way Beachwood City Hall operates. It is clear from this article that these Council Members think it is in everyone’s best interest if the public is only able to get information directly from them and access beyond that has little or no measurable value or benefit to them or the City.
It is amazing that these elected officials have such a short or selective memory since in the last year and a half, there have been many documented instances where the Mayor and Council had no problem with a behavior or practice which had been in place for years when it wasn’t known to the public. However, only after it was exposed and became publicly and embarrassingly openly known they admitted there was a better way and made changes. It is disturbing that our leaders would act differently depending on the level of the public’s awareness but this is a well document reality.
Since Mr. Jacobs asked the question, “They request this information and what do they do with it?”, I decided to answer it with the following course of action…
To address Mr. Jacobs argument that little benefit comes from these records requests, future emails will list a single issue or concern that has come from information received in a public records request.
Some of the emails will spotlight something that has been exposed in the last year and the changes that were made once the public was made aware of this information. Some of the emails will spotlight a concern that hasn’t been exposed with the hope that making this information public will cause a change in behavior.
This email will be the longest you will likely receive from me and unlike future emails, it will not contain a certain issue learned from public records requests. However, I think the following things mentioned in the recent article that covered Monday night’s Council meeting need to be addressed.
Issue # 1
Mr. Jacobs and other Council Members stated that the volume of public records requests cost the City an extra $100k a year and they believe this to be a wasteful use of city funds. Upon reading this I couldn’t figure out how they arrived at the $100k number. Since this is the premise their entire argument is predicated on, and they are presenting it as if it was an undisputed fact, I felt it is was important and fair to research this claim to verify it’s truthfulness. Here is what I found.
In May of this year, the City reorganized its law department. Instead of contracting with a law firm to provide legal professionals, the City hired a full time Law Director and Assistant Law Director. According to City officials this will save over $20k annually. Also, the number of non-attorney employees in the law department has not risen in the past few years.
All employees of the law department are salaried and not hourly which makes the cost of employment for all personnel in the law department fixed. The city doesn’t spend or save an extra dollar if there are 5 public records requests or 500. Considering this, the only way Mr. Jacobs $100k claim could be accurate is if there was a tremendous amount of overtime hours accrued by law department personnel.
In order to find this out a public records was submitted and forwarded to me which showed the total cost of overtime hours for the entire law department starting on January 1, 2014 has been $576.68 and only $387.60 since May 5th when the reorganization of the law department went into effect.
$576.68 is a far cry from the $100k a year which Mr. Jacobs says these public records requests cost the City.
This is a perfect example of the need and value of the public’s accessibility to records. When a councilman in a public meeting provides a figure like this and presents it as factual to support and further their position, it is imperative that the public has the ability to find out if the data provided is reliable.
This is not a burden, nor is it even close to as costly as Mr. Jacobs claimed. However, without the right to access public records in order to learn of overtime costs, we would never know and the only information the public would have is what Mr. Jacobs or other City leaders decided residents should know regardless of truthfulness. This instance shows that it would be naïve to believe that public officials would always provide accurate and complete information without scrutiny.
Issue #2
Many council members made comments expressing their displeasure when records requests or emails or blog posts are made anonymously. I have heard the Mayor and many Council Members say that they respond to anyone who contacts them with concerns and signs their name. I have written multiple signed and unsigned emails to City Council members and other City officials and only a small percentage of the time have I received replies.
A perfect example is last year on June 28th, 2013, I wrote Mayor Gorden with my concerns about the spending level of the City and the amount of debt it has accumulated. His assistant promptly responded to set up a meeting. However, two days before the meeting his assistant wrote me an email saying that the Mayor believes, “that should you meet, the two of you will agree to disagree in the end. As such, your request to meet is no longer approved”. There is a problem when a public official thinks it is appropriate and good policy to only meet with people who will agree with him.
Issue #3
Once it was clear that concerns written in signed emails or voiced at Council Meetings would mostly be ignored, I started writing some but not all of my emails without signing my name. There is nothing in anything I have ever written that I don’t stand by or would be embarrassed if it was attributed to me. However, while I am not shy about my beliefs, I personally don’t like the attention and have seen that the main strategy used by the Mayor and Council to address criticism is to attack the character or intent of the critic instead of address the content of the message.
A typical response from the City is to claim the only people who have issues are ones who are disgruntled about last year’s election or friends of Brian Linick. I don’t speak for anyone else but I think it is important to address this. Before May of 2013, when the media posted the first article critical of operations in Beachwood government, I knew who Brian Linick was but had actually spoken to him less than 5 times for a grand total of probably five minutes. Over the past year I have become friend with Brian but he knows that if he operated in the same way as our current leaders, I would be just as critical of him.
The concerns I express have nothing to do with the personalities of the people I am critical of. I don’t know any of them on more than a casual and superficial level. In fact, most of them seem like nice people. My concerns are strictly based on the way they believe the City of Beachwood should operate.
To conclude this email, I have heard supporters of the Mayor and Council often say, “these people need to realize the election is over”. I respect the results of the election but I think there is a flawed view that a winner in an election has a mandate to abide only by rules and laws that they deem are important or convenient. I believe this attitude is prevalent in Beachwood and a great example is when four sitting council members voice their disdain for the law that provides the residents access to public records and information.
I believe that most people want their local government to be honest and to strive to spend public monies in the most effectively and efficient ways. The reality is few people have the time to make public records request and if the information isn’t easily accessible, they are forced to rely on the information given to them by these public officials. This is an issue that is important to me and my goal is make objective information easy to find so residents can decide for themselves if our public officials are good stewards of our public money.
Future emails will focus on a single issue and my goal is that they are less than a half page. If do not wish to receive more emails about Beachwood City government, please reply and I will take you off this list.
Sincerely,
Mike Burkons
[email protected]
From: Mike Burkons [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Beachwood Public Records Issue
Dear Mayor Gorden and City of Beachwood Councilmembers,
It has been a few days since the Monday night Council Meeting when Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Mintz, Mr. Goodman and Mr. Wacht expressed their disdain for the volume of public records request the City of Beachwood receives (Click here to read the article). This attitude is problematic and after some thought I decided to respond with this email.
Since May of 2013, there have been multiple examples where the media obtained information from public
records requests to enlighten residents about the way Beachwood City Hall operates. It is clear from this article that these Council Members think it is in everyone’s best interest if the public is only able to get information directly from them and access beyond that has little or no measurable value or benefit to them or the City.
It is amazing that these elected officials have such a short or selective memory since in the last year and a half, there have been many documented instances where the Mayor and Council had no problem with a behavior or practice which had been in place for years when it wasn’t known to the public. However, only after it was exposed and became publicly and embarrassingly openly known they admitted there was a better way and made changes. It is disturbing that our leaders would act differently depending on the level of the public’s awareness but this is a well document reality.
Since Mr. Jacobs asked the question, “They request this information and what do they do with it?”, I decided to answer it with the following course of action…
To address Mr. Jacobs argument that little benefit comes from these records requests, future emails will list a single issue or concern that has come from information received in a public records request.
Some of the emails will spotlight something that has been exposed in the last year and the changes that were made once the public was made aware of this information. Some of the emails will spotlight a concern that hasn’t been exposed with the hope that making this information public will cause a change in behavior.
This email will be the longest you will likely receive from me and unlike future emails, it will not contain a certain issue learned from public records requests. However, I think the following things mentioned in the recent article that covered Monday night’s Council meeting need to be addressed.
Issue # 1
Mr. Jacobs and other Council Members stated that the volume of public records requests cost the City an extra $100k a year and they believe this to be a wasteful use of city funds. Upon reading this I couldn’t figure out how they arrived at the $100k number. Since this is the premise their entire argument is predicated on, and they are presenting it as if it was an undisputed fact, I felt it is was important and fair to research this claim to verify it’s truthfulness. Here is what I found.
In May of this year, the City reorganized its law department. Instead of contracting with a law firm to provide legal professionals, the City hired a full time Law Director and Assistant Law Director. According to City officials this will save over $20k annually. Also, the number of non-attorney employees in the law department has not risen in the past few years.
All employees of the law department are salaried and not hourly which makes the cost of employment for all personnel in the law department fixed. The city doesn’t spend or save an extra dollar if there are 5 public records requests or 500. Considering this, the only way Mr. Jacobs $100k claim could be accurate is if there was a tremendous amount of overtime hours accrued by law department personnel.
In order to find this out a public records was submitted and forwarded to me which showed the total cost of overtime hours for the entire law department starting on January 1, 2014 has been $576.68 and only $387.60 since May 5th when the reorganization of the law department went into effect.
$576.68 is a far cry from the $100k a year which Mr. Jacobs says these public records requests cost the City.
This is a perfect example of the need and value of the public’s accessibility to records. When a councilman in a public meeting provides a figure like this and presents it as factual to support and further their position, it is imperative that the public has the ability to find out if the data provided is reliable.
This is not a burden, nor is it even close to as costly as Mr. Jacobs claimed. However, without the right to access public records in order to learn of overtime costs, we would never know and the only information the public would have is what Mr. Jacobs or other City leaders decided residents should know regardless of truthfulness. This instance shows that it would be naïve to believe that public officials would always provide accurate and complete information without scrutiny.
Issue #2
Many council members made comments expressing their displeasure when records requests or emails or blog posts are made anonymously. I have heard the Mayor and many Council Members say that they respond to anyone who contacts them with concerns and signs their name. I have written multiple signed and unsigned emails to City Council members and other City officials and only a small percentage of the time have I received replies.
A perfect example is last year on June 28th, 2013, I wrote Mayor Gorden with my concerns about the spending level of the City and the amount of debt it has accumulated. His assistant promptly responded to set up a meeting. However, two days before the meeting his assistant wrote me an email saying that the Mayor believes, “that should you meet, the two of you will agree to disagree in the end. As such, your request to meet is no longer approved”. There is a problem when a public official thinks it is appropriate and good policy to only meet with people who will agree with him.
Issue #3
Once it was clear that concerns written in signed emails or voiced at Council Meetings would mostly be ignored, I started writing some but not all of my emails without signing my name. There is nothing in anything I have ever written that I don’t stand by or would be embarrassed if it was attributed to me. However, while I am not shy about my beliefs, I personally don’t like the attention and have seen that the main strategy used by the Mayor and Council to address criticism is to attack the character or intent of the critic instead of address the content of the message.
A typical response from the City is to claim the only people who have issues are ones who are disgruntled about last year’s election or friends of Brian Linick. I don’t speak for anyone else but I think it is important to address this. Before May of 2013, when the media posted the first article critical of operations in Beachwood government, I knew who Brian Linick was but had actually spoken to him less than 5 times for a grand total of probably five minutes. Over the past year I have become friend with Brian but he knows that if he operated in the same way as our current leaders, I would be just as critical of him.
The concerns I express have nothing to do with the personalities of the people I am critical of. I don’t know any of them on more than a casual and superficial level. In fact, most of them seem like nice people. My concerns are strictly based on the way they believe the City of Beachwood should operate.
To conclude this email, I have heard supporters of the Mayor and Council often say, “these people need to realize the election is over”. I respect the results of the election but I think there is a flawed view that a winner in an election has a mandate to abide only by rules and laws that they deem are important or convenient. I believe this attitude is prevalent in Beachwood and a great example is when four sitting council members voice their disdain for the law that provides the residents access to public records and information.
I believe that most people want their local government to be honest and to strive to spend public monies in the most effectively and efficient ways. The reality is few people have the time to make public records request and if the information isn’t easily accessible, they are forced to rely on the information given to them by these public officials. This is an issue that is important to me and my goal is make objective information easy to find so residents can decide for themselves if our public officials are good stewards of our public money.
Future emails will focus on a single issue and my goal is that they are less than a half page. If do not wish to receive more emails about Beachwood City government, please reply and I will take you off this list.
Sincerely,
Mike Burkons
[email protected]