Jan 18 meeting

If you saw Doug Strehl at the Dec 7th Council meeting suggest to the Council a public meeting on the tank issue, give him a call and thank him. Even if you didn't see it, call and thank him anyway. The difference between a hearing and a workshop is that the rules for public participation are more relaxed. It appears to me to have been a valiant attempt to provide a time to actually look at the tank issue, to hear what people think about it.

The Mayor agreed with the idea, even suggesting extensions of time could be allowed. He then asked the City Manager his opinion, and it looked like a go. They didn't ask the other three council members. But that isn't necessary because the City Manager, consulting with the Mayor, sets the meeting schedule. That task is delegated to him. Somehow, somewhere the idea got dropped. At the early January meeting, it was back to making both decisions at one meeting (to certify the negative declaration and approve the next step in the process). When the final agenda came out it is now just one agenda item. That means only one public hearing. What a wonderful time saving idea. I called and checked. There will be no extensions of time for speakers, no electronic images, and no expressing the opinion that the new tank isn't necessary. Anyway, that's the rules for the public. Except the last one, that one violates the Brown Act.

In any case, Doug Strehl deserves our thanks for trying to open the process up. Please call him, serving on the council shouldn't be a thankless job. He's in the phone book. I would save you the time, but I fear those little webby information gathering devices would pick up the number and put him on some call list.

If you have a bit more time call another member of the council and ask what their views are on public participation. Ken Zanzi, Mel Berti, Pat Whitchurch and Dean Glaser are all in the phone book.

Monday is the meeting. I know that one voice carries no weight, especially when that voice is saying something they don't want to hear. But I'll be there, a martyr to free speech and public participation. Please don't pity me, I hate pity. Understand that I believe in it. It actually can be fun. Come on down Monday, I could use some company. Oh, yes. It is at 6pm at the Courthouse.

Here is the link to my visual presentation I won't be showing. I checked the box for no sign-in required, hope it works. If you would like a hard copy leave that in a comment. I'll try to have one for you at the meeting. Also, I'll be giving a hard copy to the Council members, so it should be available at City Hall after the meeting. This is about the project, because that is what is on the agenda. The city reservoir at Vancil is not on the agenda.

Quick comment on court decision

I am concerned about spending over 4 million dollars on a new water tank when we have Vancil reservoir. I tried to obtain records to understand the water system in general and about the possibility of using Vancil in that system. That is our right under the Public Records Act.

Though I tried to avoid it, I had to file a lawsuit to obtain those records. Unfortunately, the city decided to fight to the bitter end. They could have settled for $15,000. The judge decided to award $22,000 for attorney fees and costs.

The city got its day in court. I have gotten what I was asking for, access to public records. My attorney should to be paid for his work as provided for in the law. No records would have been released without his work.

You can see the released records: on using Vancil The Water System Schematic

For me, it's back to the question of using Vancil...

Quick update

Thanks for the emails and referrals. Last week the number of visitors went down, but the number of new visitors has gone up, and they are not stray visitors from South America looking for another Fortuna. If you wish to remain anonymous don't worry. Google analytics doesn't tell secrets, I still don't know who you are.

The data of what people click on shows a continuing interest in the lawsuit. I didn't quite understand that, until someone asked why the lawsuit is still on the Council Agenda. So here is the answer: there needs to be a settlement of attorney's fees. Last I heard my attorney was waiting to hear from the city's attorney. I hesitate to call again as every phone call adds to attorney's fees and therefore costs the city.

My concern is that although I have left 'lawsuit land' where you aren't allowed to talk except through your attorney, the City Council is probably still stuck there. Hope they find their way out soon.

As for using Vancil instead of building a new tank, my heartfelt thanks for this comment: "Godspeed on your stamina and ability to keep up all your good work even when it gets tiresome." I have taken some time off on this project except for some reviewing/reflection time. I don't imagine I'll have any news until the end of next week or so.

The two Fortuna (and nearby) Native Plant Society walks were well attended and enjoyable. Many thanks to Carol and Larry for coming down to lead the walks.

What now?

Hopefully, the attorneys are wrapping up Egger v City of Fortuna. I went into this with an understanding with myself: I believe that the city is trying to provide information and be more open, but we had a serious disagreement over the interpretation of two parts of the California Public Records Act.

We disagreed about whether all preliminary records can be withheld from the public and if the City can reject a request without an attempt to help identify records. I have received the preliminary information used to prepare the Vancil portion of the staff report and the City was able to provide it without a specific list from me (how could I know what information they used to prepare their report?). I feel receiving the information shows that the City has rethought its interpretation. Having been told that I can make further requests related to this, if needed, I have confirmed my wish to end the lawsuit.

My attorney, Paul Boylan, asked what I would do next? I've thought about that a bit and decided to take another friend's advise and do a poll. Look to the right and you will see it under "What Now?" It is part tongue-in-cheek fun, part real curiosity. Check as many boxes as you wish.

But first, if you have a chance, please check out fortunacitizen, where I ask, "Why don't we use Vancil?" The lawsuit, remember, was to aid my work looking into the possibility of using Vancil reservoir instead of building a new one nearby(possible savings: 2.5 to 3 million dollars). Much of what I've found is there, organized roughly by the questions I asked as I went along. Take a look, and don't forget to come back and let me know what you think.
thanks.

PS here is a preview of the questions at fortunacitizen:

1. Where does Fortuna store it's water? Not counting the 2 failing, there are 4 reservoir/tanks.
   
2. Does Fortuna need more water storage? Possibly in the south, not in the north.
   
3. Is there enough emergency storage? Yes, even without the 2 failing tanks. A remaining question: what is the weak-link in an emergency?
   
4. Are there alternatives to spending more than $4 million on a new water tank? yes
   
5. Didn't City staff conclude that using Vancil was "not prudent at any cost savings? Yes, now they need to support their conclusion.
   
6. What information did staff use to come to their conclusion? There is not a lot of documented information collection.
   
7. Wouldn't using Vancil risk relying on PRV valves? The city uses PRV valves.
   
8. Do the Water Revenue Bonds require building a new reservoir to replace those at Stewart Street? No.
   

Go to fortunacitizen for more information.

Not so public, after all

My apologies if you tried to view the released records yesterday and found you needed a google account to view. When I tested it, the link worked like a charm, but of course I was logged on to my google account at the time. Sigh...

I tried scribd.com, no luck. So, at this time the options are: create a google account (easy); send an email to fortuna.sunshine@yahoo.com, subject: released records (easy for you, I'm happy to send); or go ask for them at City Hall (great if you are out for a walk, you can look at or pay for a copy thanks to City Staff)

Let the sun shine in

Now available to the public, the records that took a lawsuit to get released.

Awhile back Anonymous at SoHum Parlance wrote "Please explain in a bit more detail exactly what was withheld from you; I'd really like to know." It was quite frustrating, but I had to write, "my counsel instructs me not to say anything about the case for now." Seemed like an odd response from someone asking the City to be more open. But that is what happens when you enter lawsuit land.

I so wanted to avoid uttering those words that I spent hours researching and then writing a letter to explain to the City that the California Public Records Act, State Constitution and the courts all agree that they should share with me the information they were gathering on using the underutilized Vancil reservoir instead of building a new tank 1/4mile away at Sewart Street . The final response: "we do not know of any reports or items held or retained by the City as requested."

Despite my derisive "lawsuit land" comment above, I'm proud to live in a country that has a court system that allows for challenges to questionable practices by government officials. Perhaps one sticking point was that the City didn't understand what I meant by "consultant or staff reports regarding the investigation of using the existing Vancil Street reservoir for zone1 water storage." All I can say to that is I'm glad I have a sense of humor and a belief in the ability of people to change.

Now, back to those public records. All this was so that hopefully I would be the last to hit a brick wall at City Hall. The writer mentioned above is right not all city records are public, but most of them are.
And I was so happy about making whatever was in that envelope I picked up last Friday available to the public I immediately went over and had them scanned into a pdf file. Joke was on me, I discovered I couldn't post a pdf file directly on FortunaCitizen, or at least if it is possible I couldn't figure out how. Luckily, after much trial and error, I talked to my son. He pointed me in the right direction and after more trial and error the records are there, where ever 'there' is. And you can see them, too because they are public records.
The link requires a google account. Don't have one? It is easy and free, or fortuna.sunshine@yahoo.com will be happy to email pdf file to you; please use "released records" for email subject.

The envelope, please

A pretty simple, wonderful thing. I walked in, told her I thought there was an envelope I was to pick up at the front desk and she handed it to me. Or at least she tried to, I then asked if she would mind a picture. With some understandable hesitation (I am not found of pictures, myself) she happily agreed.
Only as I was leaving did I think to ask her to thank Mr. Rigge, I hope she did because I am truly thankful. I could have many bones to pick with him, but he is the City Manager and he is responsible for making public records available and yesterday he did his job. Isn't that what we want from City employees? Cheerful, without a hassle, that's very nice, too.

I took a look in the envelope yesterday evening. Of the 62 pages 26 are the staff report; 11 pages listing (identifying) articles/ sections/ chapters of Title 22---the drinking water regulations; and 4 pages with copies of sections. All very confidential stuff. Silliness. I should edit some of this out for the sake of kindness, but I need it; it shows that sometimes finding nothing is very helpful. Or in this case just a little bit.

I now know that they did do some investigation of using Vancil. As I remember, the Council asked about Vancil at one meeting but made no comment. So I think it is a fair assumption that the City Manager has a lot of discretion or was getting direction from Council outside of public meetings. Either way, I am thankful to find some investigation. I will have to do more than a page count to see if there is anything here to qualify as a show stopper. It was fun to note a star next to a section of the law I had been looking at. Competent minds think alike? I am aching to check my notes to see if we were looking at the same time. But on to other things. If I can, I'll post what I picked up at fortunacitizen In the meantime, check out some of the historical info there.

Please join me at the upcoming workshop on the Capital Improvement Projects for the next 5 years. If I understand correctly, this is the process to approve spending money on the Water System. It is this Monday, the 9th, 6pm, City Hall. For more information, click here: friendlyfortuna.com Pass it along.

Photo by Susan K. Campbell

Change

I am so happy I can hardly type. In a few minutes I'll be going to City Hall to pick up a packet of information that will, hopefully, fulfill my California Public Records Act request. I am very hopeful that this is, indeed, a sign of change. The reason I am so hopeful is that I understand that there are only 50 pages. To me this means that there are no games being played. The game one would expect is the city copying everything remotely (or not) related and thus burying any useful information, wasting both staff time and my time.

Is there a chance that something may have been overlooked? Yes. But that can be easily remedied with a future request.

To all those who helped bring this happy result, both the decision maker(s), the record gatherers, and copiers: A very warm thank you. Have a good weekend.

Let the sunshine in!

Change in Fortuna

Good news this afternoon. Got a phone call from Paul Boylan, the attorney handling the Public Records Act case. He called to let me know that the city may be ready to give me copies as early as Friday. This is wonderful news.

I am a bit apprehensive, as the word is they are copying the whole Stewart Street Reservoir Replacement Project file. It goes way beyond what I asked for and could take a lot of time to sort through. But I agreed to that as a compromise assuming that otherwise staff time would have to be used to sort through it, and it might need to be someone with some familiarity with the project to distinguish which records were pertinent to my request.

A week ago the city released the first record, which was part of the first request I made back in September. Having finally figured out how to make it more readable than the earlier pages I posted on FortunaCitizen today.

For a little background on this read comments at Sohum Parlance