Stephanie Grace: To recap: Last month, the administration said it hadn't complied with a public records request for Mayor Ray Nagin's official e-mails and half his electronic calendar from 2008 because the records had been deleted due to an alleged lack of server space -- a clear violation of state records law.
...
Then this week came word that Nagin's management information systems office and -- in an especially weird twist -- sanitation director Veronica White answered a separate request from activist attorney Tracie Washington by producing thousands of e-mails dating back three years, from four City Council members, their staffs and one administration official. Moreover, the records they handed over were unredacted, and they fulfilled the request without telling the city attorney or the council.
The situation raises a whole bunch of questions, about what Nagin, White -- who has a history of battling with the council -- and Washington are really up to. It also makes you wonder what's really going on at City Hall.
T-P:The unorthodox release [of e-mails] has inflamed already raw tensions between the mayor and the council, and comes shortly after the city divulged in a lawsuit with WWL-TV that all of the mayor's e-mails from 2008 had been deleted because of storage problems.
Nagin was asked why the city couldn't produce his e-mails when the council's were produced without any problem.
"Why is it fishy? Why isn't there a legitimate reason? Why am I always put in a position that I'm doing something wrong?" he asked. "Here's the quick answer. The city has two servers. One is mayorofno.com, the one is cityofno.com. The council is on cityofno.com
"Mayorofno.com ran into some storage issues. It was a temporary problem, the problem has been fixed, and you can have my e-mails now, as many as you like."
I didn't expect Nagin to say that.
Alright. I'd like them all, please. Put them on computer disc, too, so I can save the 25 cents per page fee that everyone else has to pay when they receive public records requests. That would be helpful.
===
E at WCBF and
Big Red Cotton have additional coverage.
Labels: City Council, crime, Cronies, Nagin
16 Comments:
Why Jeff Thomas? That's the part I don't understand. I get that he's white, but is there a division in Blakely's office, too? Anybody?
Blakely certainly enjoys claiming that a "division" exists in his office.
There have been some uniquely New Orleans hang-ups as well, said the recovery director; “lot of tensions in the staff,” revolving around race. “Black people have a hard time taking instruction from white people,” said Mr. Blakely, who is black. There is resentment “if a white person asks them to do something. It’s really bad. I’ve never encountered anything like this.”
Keep hammering that guy. To paraphrase an old canard, if it walks like a skunk, smells like a skunk...
Oh! Civics lesson. Heh.
Why isn't Miss Washington being considered for Inspector General?
Answer: She's not part of the Good Old Boy Network and would probably be "uppity" and actually do a very thorough job of rooting out the nepotism and "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" mentality of local politics.
Is it me or does Nagin look like Tim Moore.
(To lazy to do HTML code......copy and paste.)
http://www.geocities.com/~jimlowe/tmoore/tmoordex.html
It's a small thing but mayorofno.com is a URL, or web address. It is not a server.
Chucho: Why, you ask?
"A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender."
Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.4(b).
The City Council's lawyer should have heard from Washington before it broke in the paper. Getting 100,000 plus emails suggests there may be something included in there that you shouldn't have. Nor is it reasonable to assume they had been vetted and redacted with that kind of turn-around on the request.
That's why.
Moreover, I'm glad the Cynthias and James Carter are above reproach.
mayorofno.com is not a URL it is a domain as is cityofno.com. The difference is that a URL includes a propocol in addition to identify how to access the resource (http://www.cityofno.com for example). Mail does not typically use URL's
The thing is the internet runs on IP addresses. Both cityofno.com and mayorofno.com identify the same IP address as their mail server suggesting at least that both domains reside on the same server
Interesting.
My question would by why a city employee, and I'm assuming that sanitation director Veronica White is a city employee, would have to check with anyone before complying with the law.
I'm told that Ms. White might have opened herself to disciplinary action for releasing those emails and I'd like to know why complying with the law can take second seat to complying with the city disciplinary policy?
At any rate, this is interesting.
Hey Duff.....u know anything bout crimminal law?
Paw Paw........are are u u the the one one who who whores whores out out his his grand grand kids kids selling selling those those gas gas guzzling guzzling highway highway eye eye sores sores to to morons morons?
Because, Pawpaw, Veronica White isn't a lawyer, nor do I suspect she has a firm understanding of the ins and outs of the Public Records Act.
I don't think the Council has ever suggested that they would not comply with the law. The process is important here. C. Ray has the same protections regarding privilege and redactions, well, he would had he not deleted all of his email, and potentially obstructing justice in the process.
What do you think would happen if you submitted a letter to the NSA asking for all their emails, and some random employee gave all of them to you? The Public Records Act is somewhat more complex than "give anyone who asks anything they ask for."
See La.R.S. 44:1, et seq.
D-BB, yes. I do.
Duff - thanks for the answer, but..
Are you equating the emails of the NO City council with the emails at the NSA? That's a ludicrous argument and you know it.
What secrets might the council be keeping?
As to your lawyerly response, I've looked at parts and portions of R.S. 44, and saw things like "A. The custodian shall present any public record to any person of the age of majority who so requests." I didn't see anything about "checking with your lawyer before you comply with the law."
Tracie Washington opened herself up to legal sanctions by the Bar because she is Ms. White's attorney!
Ms. Washington if you recall went on TV threatening legal action against Head & others for racial discrimination on behalf of Veronica White.
Hence Ms. Washington's law license is going to be suspended it would appear.
I'm not saying the City Council's emails have matters of national security contained within, however, there is a similar need to examine (and possibly redact) the emails before they get published.
Note, Veronica White is also not the custodian of the City Council's emails. This is why you check with your lawyer before you comply.
Another reason, bearing in mind the NOAH, City Cars, and Crime Cameras, R.S. 44:3(A)(1).
Moreover, if any of those emails were of a personal nature: R.S. 44:11 arguably applies as well.
Anonymous: Which Rule of Professional Responsibility did Washington violate by asking her client for the records? I'm not so up on those.
