So here's the deal...
Fort Smith City administrator Carl Geffken got back to me earlier in the week on the lack of updates on the city "email export" system that is supposed to help guarantee "transparency" in local government by posting all of the emails to and from city directors concerning city business.
The problem -- whatever it was that kept the system from updating since the middle of May -- has been corrected. When I sent Mr. Geffken a question on December 27 about my inability to access what was supposed to be public information his reply was that he would "look into it" and the next day he sent me a follow -up email saying the problem has been corrected.
The bottom line? That is all well and good but obviously, as I speculated in my last column, Mr. Geffken was either unaware of the glitch or the lack of updates was deliberate, and neither scenario cast a favorable shadow on an employee that was just given yet another glowing evaluation (and raise) by our erstwhile board of directors.
I have already apologized for not exposing this situation earlier. But bear with me for a second.
Back on June 13 of this year after a month of not being able to access the information I sent the following email to the newly hired Communications Director for the city:
"Jun 13, 2018, 12:03 AM
to Karen
Karen, As an example of what I was talking about yesterday on the "email export" situation: I just downloaded Mike Lorenz's "email dump" . According to information on there Mike has either not done an official City of Fort Smith email since May 15 or they have not been updated.
When there was the big flap and lawsuit about the FOIA Carl Geffken was pretty grandiose in announcing this "weekly email export' in an effort to support "transparency" but the truth is it runs five or six weeks behind when it was supposed to be weekly. And I'll be honest with you...what IS eventually released has been scrubbed and highly sanitized. You can find all kind of references to "emails" or messages" that seemingly don't exist in the system. I have it on pretty good authority that some of the BOD members are doing their messages to each other concerning city business via text or private email. Given the insistance of three of them that the FOIA is "antiquated and useless" it doesn't surprise me.
At least one went months linking his private business to official city emails by putting a link to his business website at the bottom and I complained to to the state ethics committee. He publicly ridiculed me for making the complaint. Yet, in everything involving the FOIA, the Attorney General has sided with me and the press. The city either needs to keep their promise and keep the email export feature updated or abandoned the facade and charade of 'openness' they have tried to foist off on the public."
I got no response from Ms. Santos. But you would have thought that (in the least) the communications director might have communicated my concerns to the person who could have fixed it. So...she either didn't, she did and they were ignored or she did and the person who eventually seemingly corrected the situation just didn't care.
Either way, someone dropped the ball. So there is plenty of blame to go around
In fact, although I am supposed to be "in the loop" of information sent our from the city now that I can see the emails from the last seven months (I spent hours last night looking them over) it's obvious that I have been excluded from dozens of emails that other members of the press have received.
Being that I exposed her "sexist" comment that got her a week's vacation without pay, I'm doubting I'm on her Christmas card list anyway.
Mr. Geffken's emails--other than those that are sent back and forth to BOD members-- are apparently absolved from disclosure since he is not an elected official.
And to be perfectly honest (like I said above) every caution is being employed to ensure they don't get caught violating FOIA. It's still happening, it's just through phone texts, face-to-face encounters, and private emails now. (Call me a liar and make me publish the documentation.)
I was somewhat heartened that one of the city directors followed up with me to ask if I got a response to my query (I always blind copy all the directors when I email Mr. Geffken). So maybe at least one of them does care what's gong on.
The emails that do make it through are pretty bland, although there are a few gems to be found in the "deleted" and "sent" caches.
I was delighted to see that one of the most dedicated violators of the FOIA told a citizen in an email he doesn't plan on running for re-election in 2020. Here's to hoping that, for once, you're shooting straight with the public.
If so, that's one down and two to go. For now.
There are some other goodies in there as well, and I will be touching on those in the days to come.
But there will not be another seven month lull in making the emails available in the system and I will not be systematically excluded from press releases other outlets receive or I will be in touch with Ms. Rutledge's office again. The days of being lackadaisical and looking the other way have come to a close.
And I have it on pretty good authority that Ms. Rutledge doesn't want to hear "Fort Smith " and "FOIA" again in the same sentence anytime soon.
There have been thousands of dollars spent by the city defending the indefensible when it comes to the Sunshine Laws in this state.
As I have said before, dog and pony shows belong in the circus and this whole "email export dump" has been a three ring fiasco from the start.
I should have been making the dogs and ponies perform a little better than they have.
I -- and my "little blog" -- won't make the same mistake twice.
