Principles over preferences
If we’re going to be loyal to our principles in this era of political division and rivalry, we sometimes have to take up for those we disagree with in defense of those principles. This is one of those times.
Steven Vaca has been, quite frankly, a thorn in the side of city government since last spring. Some might say that’s good, we need more citizens keeping a close eye on those we pay to oversee our affairs at that level. I’d be with them on that.
But I’d add that citizen oversight must be responsible, fair and accurate in its conclusions. And it must be willing and eager for two-way discussions, not all of which can be held in the public spotlight due to time constraints and public interest limitations. Those two-way discussions, rather than always being truly substantive, are necessary from an educational and background standpoint. This is a lesson I learned in journalism school and applied from day one of my career.
I’m not a subject matter expert in most, if not all, the topics I cover, whether it be local government, education, law enforcement or the courts. It’s critical that I recognize that from the start and do everything in my power to make up for that knowledge deficit before I write a single word.
This is the problem with the new vigilante “journalism” Vaca represents, and thankfully his social media views and influence have remained limited in their often baseless attacks on Belton city government. His worst offense in my eyes has been his abject refusal to meet one-on-one with city officials, including the city manager and the mayor, in their attempts to answer his various charges.
But that’s enough on Vaca. I’ve not addressed him in print until now because I honestly don’t feel his overdramatic, often inaccurate posts are worth any more attention than they’re getting (which is thankfully little).
Given my preference, the last thing I’d choose to do is defend him or choose his “side.” But that’s where we are. I have to choose principles over my prefence, and one Belton councilmember has left me no choice this week. What galls me even more is that she represents my own ward. So here we go.
Vaca came before the council Tuesday night to request a fee waiver on two requests, one totaling $181.82 in city labor, and the other $500.25 in city labor. This is standard and proper – I’ve made these waiver requests myself as provided by state law.
The law limiting free reproduction of government records came as a result of commercial enterprises, such as insurance companies and marketing firms, making growing demands for data that the government collects and keeps for legitimate purposes.
The task of fulfilling these requests falls to government employees, all of whom are paid by we, the taxpayers. The obvious question becomes, should we fund treasure hunts by commercial enterprises? Should we fund treasure hunts by other enterprises that are not operating in a recognized public interest?
Even as one whose profession often requires me to make such requests in order to fulfill my responsibilities in the public interest, the taxpayer in me fully supports requiring reimbursement for those requests that don’t meet that standard.
As a brick-and-mortar business committed to the profession of public interest journalism, one that provides a printed product weekly, that manages the important role of publishing public notice advertising from the courts and governments, we’ll always argue that our records requests are in the pubic interest. We won’t always win that battle, which galls me.
Vaca’s arguments are a bit more tenuous. One could absolutely question whether his requests serve the public interest, especially in light of his often inaccurate and misleading prose combined with his refusal to meet directly with city officials.
But that only addresses whether his requests should be filled for free. Because none of his requests fall inside the very narrow exceptions to the Sunshine Law, there should be no question he’s entitled to everything he asked for should he reimburse the city’s expenses.
But not according to Ward 3 Councilmember Allyson Lawson, who herself works for a media organization. Her absolutely stunning response to Vaca’s request should alarm all citizens.
In reference to a portion of his request for “any complaints, inquiries, or correspondence received by the City from members of the public concerning ALPR (Flock) cameras, and the City’s responses,” a fundamental and clear request for records that are undebatebly (is that a word?) public, here was her response:
“Um, I just don’t see the need, um for the requester to access this information. If he’s interested in public opinion on the cameras or concerns, he’s very good at engaging on Facebook and could request folks chime into him from there,” Lawson said.
To compound her stunning lack of respect for the Sunshine Law, she continued with this:
“Also, I have the feeling when some people email us or the city, it is not a (public) matter. It is not intended to be a matter of public record. People will come to the council meetings and state their opinions, but I don’t think that any email a ward member sends to me is up to your scrutiny, necessarily, and so in protecting residents who just want to communicate with their councilmember, I don’t understand the value to the public in that.”
Guess what, councilmember, the Missouri General Assembly does. And that’s who you answer to. And to be frank, I was highly disappointed not to hear City Attorney Padraic Corcoran immediately jump in and correct her confusion on a topic she is required to be knowledgeable of. Corcoran normally does an outstandng job contributing to much more challenging subjects than this on a regular basis.
Vaca’s appeal for a $500-plus fee waiver on this portion of his request was ultimately denied, unanimously – a decision I fully support. But let there be no confusion, Lawson has zero role in determining whether or not the documents Vaca requested should be”public.” They are, whether she likes it or not. It’s just a question of who pays for the reproduction.
As her constituent, I expressed this to her Tuesday night in an email (which is public, should anyone wish to read it). What you’ll also see is that she failed to reply or supply any explanation for her lack of knowledge on this matter.
Later, I let her know I would be writing an opinion piece critical of her performance and felt it would be only fair to offer her a chance to reply for publication. Her response would have been welcome in this piece.
It never came.
Lawson’s second term on the council expires this coming April. It’s always possible that six years of service, the first four of which I have felt have been outstanding, could create some burnout. We’ll see if she re-ups for another term.
But no amount of burnout excuses a clear ignorance of state law when it comes to public record coupled with the assumption she has the authority to determine what should or should not be released to the public.
Comments