Comments for Lockwood's Requests Cost County Over $1600 at http://prescottenews.com , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://prescottenews.com Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:50:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-270 How fun to come to mutual agreement! I too respect and have enjoyed the debate. - Ted Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:50:10 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-269 Greetings Ted, I did unintentionally misunderstand the point you were making and I sincerely appreciate your clarification of your valid point regarding digital viewing of public documents rather than printing them all out. Honestly, I am not certain whether or not this method could have been accomplished by Ms. Ayers or not. I absolutely agree with you that if it were possible for Ms. Ayers to place all 6691 documents on a digital viewing device for viewing, that should have been done to save taxpayer money on the paper and ink [staff time would have still been the same.] Possibly our discussion will somehow prompt an inquiry into why this method was not utilized and action for correction can occur. With all due respect though, I must express the following: Just because you and I are utilizing a blog site to express our concerns on two separate issues / concerns, which can lead to misinterpretation of one's thoughts, does not mean that I am not interested in saving taxpayer money by utilizing much more efficient public document viewing requests or that I am not interested in accountability of any County employee to most definitely include the high ranking position of Ms. Ayers. Rather, it appears to me that we are both concerned over taxpayer money being utilized in a wasteful fashion but on two different fashions. You are exposing a wrong-doing on a current County top employee and I am exposing a wrong-doing on a candidate for District 1 Supervisor. Respectfully, I did not question your interest on whether or not Ms. Lockwood's statements should be called into question when she puts in written form [and is sent out for public distribution]that she is interested in people over politics but her actions in this matter dictate the opposite as my concern has been stated. We simply read one article, yet pulled out of it two separate but valid concerns over the use of taxpayer money by two separate individuals who we expect to act in a financial responsible manner. It is my opinion that there should be accountability on Ms. Ayers if she had the means to place the documents in a much more cost effective manner and I appreciate your agreement with my point that candidates should be called to a higher standard. I was simply making a point that it is my opinion that there should be accountability on anyone running as a candidate for the supposed good of the people they wish to represent by not placing an added cost burden on them but rather absorbing the cost themselves especially if the request for public documents produce no evidence of wrong-doing. So, it appears we are both vigilant taxpayers in our oversight of how others are utilizing our hard earned money. I do appreciate conversing with you on this. You seem to be an intelligent man with extremely valid points. I hope that you have a splendid day. - Concerned Taxpayer Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:55:40 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-267 Dear Concerned, I suppose we are beating a dead hors here, but my CD or flash drive suggestion was misunderstood by you. I simply mean that Julie could have and in my opinion should have made documents available digitally for inspection by the Lockwood camp (and for others requesting public documents – we the tax payer may not be able to afford Julies poor management decisions) the public can view documents on a public computer in a public office and choose which documents they wish to obtain hard copies of. Julie claims that there was once hard copied files for the public to peruse and choose documents that they wanted copies of. Now she thinks she that she must take the digitally stored records, print them all out, then have the public choose the papers from the hard copies - that seems silly to me. If files are stored digitally, let the public view them digitally then choose which copies they need. If there is a privacy problem I agree that the files in question need to be moved to a flash drive or a CD so that the private files remain secure on hard drives. I absolutely understand your argument that those running for elected offices need to be held to a higher standard. However, you missed my point entirely and that makes me believe that you are not really interested in a solution to future public document request or problems with Julie but are more interested in exposing a candidate for wrong doing (which is certainly important but I don't think the only point in this blog). Are you claiming that you see no accountability on Julie for this issue at all? - Ted Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:48:12 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-266 Greetings Ted, I will attempt to clarify two of the issues you just raised. First point: I was not saying that Ms. Lockwood did not have the right to request public documents. Sure she does as anyone does especially for oversight purposes. What I am pointing out is simply the following. Ms. Lockwood, in her unique position as running for District 1 Supervisor, placed the burden of paying for the staff's time, the paper and ink on the taxpayers she is claiming to care for. In my respective opinion as a taxpayer, I would have been more impressed with her character to display a going "above and beyond" characteristic for those she desires to represent by personally paying the entire cost herself and not only pay the minimum of only .25 per copy and leave the rest of the County staff wages, paper and ink from from taxpayer money. I would expect the average person or a separate agency to only pay the very minimal of .25 per copy of what they actually remove from the viewing area. Likewise, I would not expect the average person or a separate agency to say "hey, I know that County staff wages, paper and ink were also used in producing my request. I don't want to place that cost burden on them because I want to place their interest over politics, so I will also pay for the staff's time, paper and ink as well because I know that if I don't those who I want to represent will have to." Do you see the difference of what I mean by walking in a high standard and going above and beyond? Second Point: As far as placing the information on a cd or flashdrive, well the answer is this. Just because that information has been placed on a cd or flashdrive does not mean that Ms. Lockwood, or anyone else for that matter, would still not have been required to pay for all 6691 pages. My reason is this. Why should another person who does not have a computer or understand a computer, thereby not being able to utilize a cd or flashdrive to view requested documents, be disadvantaged to still have to pay .25 per paper copy over someone who does have a computer? If Ms. Lockwood would not have been required to pay for .25 per copy for public documents placed on a cd or flashdrive, she, or anyone else, would have an advantage over another individual who does not possess the ability to use a cd or flashdrive to view public documents. So the policy for placing public information on a cd or flashdrive should be the same as requiring another individual to pay the actual .25 per copy. If 6691 documents are placed on a cd or flashdrive and removed from a County facility, then the person leaving with that cd or flashdrive should pay .25 per copy for all of that just as if they left with 6691 pieces of paper. One should not have a financial advantage over the other. Do you see my point? If 6691 pieces are viewed on a cd or flashdrive in a County building by either the one who is computer savy or one who is not [but receives assistance from County staff on how to work the cd or flashdrive], then whatever information is requested to copy should be what they pay for. No one should have the advantage of taking 6691 documents home on a cd or flashdrive and not have to pay. I conclude once again by stressing my point that Ms. Lockwood claims to place the interest of her taxpayers over politics, however, her actions are not lining up with her statements in that she has placed a cost burden to the taxpayer for her request rather than paying that herself and what if this is a witch hunt? She has every right to seek to find out if any wrongdoing has been done by any government entity, however, in her unique and apart status as candidate of District 1, she placed an order producing 6691 pages of information, I believe she could have gone above and beyond the minimal of only .25 of 604 pages resulting in only $151 to her budget and not recognizing that the taxpayers were footing the rest of the bill of nearly $1600.00. I would hope that if her requests producing absolutely nothing, Ms. Lockwood would reimburse the taxpayer for this because two of her other lawsuits were dismissed for lack of evidence. At least those other frivolous lawsuits did not involve a financial burden on hard working taxpayers but this one is. Ms. Lockwood, with all due respect, PLEASE JUST LEAVE US ALL ALONE. This economy is difficult enough. I don't want my taxes raised because of useless waste of taxpayer money. If you would have paid for all of that, maybe I would have felt different, but it is too late because I had to give you the idea of going above and beyond. It did not come natural to you which is disheartening for someone who is concerned how much money a taxpayer should be required to pay. I wish that I had a vote on what you just did with my taxpayer money. I certainly hope I have clarified my position and I appreciate and value your time in reading and considering my position on this matter. - Concerned Taxpayer Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:06:07 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-265 I really can't understand the position of “concerned taxpayer” as I think a concerned taxpayer should focus on the fact that an email was sent stating that our Yavapai county Board of Supervisors supported changing the law and giving them the right to increase taxes without voter approval – this measure failed but if this is the position of our BOS we the voters have a right to know and if this is not the position of our BOS who took it upon themselves to say it was....if that person is Julie I think she needs to lose her job! From reading all the articles in Prescottenews it seems to me that Julie Ayers is the culprit in all of this and possibly should lose her job. Julie sent an emailed claiming that the BOS supported the ability for BOS to have the right to increase taxes without prior voter approval. According to Carol Springer this email was sent out without Carol's prior knowledge or permission nor was it a true reflection of Carol's position – if that is the case Julie has overstepped her authority and should be at a minimum written up for this infraction. It appears that the Lockwood camp requested the ability to review certain documents with a desire of copying pages that they would want. Julie could simply have had the documents put on a CD or on a USB flash drive in digital format to be looked at by the Lockwood camp then Julie could have printed out the requested documents once they were requested. But instead, Julie printed out 6,691 pages which seems like a poor decision and costly to the taxpayers. No private company manager would have handled the request as Julie has done – again realize Julie is in charge of the data request and if you believe Carol Springer - Julie is the one that caused this mess in the first place! Said documents may expose that Julie is the only culprit in this story of course she wants to make it difficult for the Lockwood camp to prove this. Or if Springer indeed authorized or requested Julie to make the email statement that she did; Julie may, out of loyalty, feel like making it difficult for Lockwood to prove it. We criticize Georgene for calling attention to this email (stating that the Yavapai county BOS supports changes to law giving BOS the right to raise taxes without voter approval). It seems that if Carol is being honest with us (and I believe she is) that Carol would be grateful that attention has been given to this matter which will prove Julie really is acting in rogue and overstepping her authority making claims that are not accurate on BOS's position on tax increase rights. - Ted Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:30:59 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-264 I appreciate the time taken in the research for this article. As a constituent of District 1, one of my qualifications I have for that position is do they have the natural character to "go above and beyond the normal aspects of their job." Because I am a registered Republican voter, I consider myself in a place of employer over the position of District 1 Supervisor, therefore, I must consider the resume for those applying for the job as well as character aspects. If I follow the County employee performance evaluations, I must consider the three categories of performance evaluations - below, meet and exceed. One of the job requirements of District 1 Supervisor is stewardship of County tax dollars on performance. Yes, the law states the information requested by Ms. Lockwood are County public documents, therefore, she has legal right to request them which means utilizing the time of County staff to do so. By law she is only required to pay .25 per copy for the documents she needs just as anyone else, however, because of the position for which is applying for [District 1 Supervisor] my question is - should Ms. Lockwood be considered just like you and I - the average person requesting public documents or should she be called to a higher standard of one who desires to look out for our best financial interest as her potential constituents? When I personally line Ms. Lockwood's 6691 page request for public documents up with applying for the job as District 1 Supervisor, I can only place her at the category of meets and not exceed because Ms. Lockwood could have easily gone "above and beyond" by reimbursing back to the County taxpayer money spent on the staff wages, the paper and the ink expended on her 6691 page request. I personally believe that as a candidate over the tax dollars she is desiring to be a trusted steward of, Ms. Lockwood should be called, in character, to a higher standard than the average person or even a separate agency requesting the result of 6691 pages and only walking away with 604. As you read my personal position on this matter, may I respectfully request that you consider the above mentioned as well the following point for just a moment. Ms. Lockwood claims she places the interest of people over politics yet she permitted all of us to foot the bill for that paper, ink and County staff time and she wants to be steward over the money we pay in County taxes deducted out of our hard earned money. As mentioned, yes, her legal right is only paying .25 for only the 604 pages she requested even though she leaves behind a wasted time and effort in the remaining 6087 pages which will most likely be cut up and used as scratch paper. As first mentioned, to be a responsible voter means considering myself as a sort of employer making the decision for the best suited employee for a job. For certain, when I line up resume's, with that of her opponent, the experience is just not there, however, it is further disheartening that when I also consider personal character, it too is not naturally there as well because Ms. Lockwood did not think of going above and beyond to reimburse tax dollars back to those she wishes to represent. Again, I believe, in this situation, she should be measured at that higher standard. Ms. Lockwood, if you read my concerns now and choose to walk that higher standard, please know that, with all respect, it is too late because the idea did not come natural to you as it had to come from your one of your potential employers also known as constituents. Sometimes we can allow our human weakness to place us on such a path to be right about something that we don't even consider the innocent people who are being harmed by our quest to bring another person down. I do see that human weakness manifesting itself in you right now and I am concerned for you. - Concerned Taxpayer Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:39:01 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-260 Thanks for letting us know that Jack and Mariann Littell resigned - it is not noted anywhere on the FWV website. I appreciate the update. - Lynne LaMaster Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:52:03 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-259 It should be noted that Jack and Mariann Littell resigned from Friends of WIlliamson Valley in October 2007. - Anonymous51 Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:36:18 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-254 I just received a postcard from Lockwood stating, “Carol Springer endorsed a one cent sales tax increase to pay for billions in highways funds. WITH NO GUARENTEE Yavapai County will get its fair share.” So I went back and read your article on this topic which you backed up with documentation that proves that what the postcard states is absolutely not true. I can not understand why anyone would vote for a person who uses misrepresents her opponent’s position and stiffs the taxpayersL - Jane Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:40:03 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-253 The image of the check was a visual representation; if you'll notice, no signature was shown in the photo, just the dollar amount. Lockwood has not paid anything yet, so there are no refunds. She only wants 604 documents, which comes to $151, if she chooses to obtain those documents. - Lynne LaMaster Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:39:46 +0100 http://prescottenews.com/news/current-news/lockwood-s-requests-cost-county-over-1600.html#comment-252 In the article "Lockwood Spends $1,672.75 For a Pile of Potential "Dirt" there was a photo of a check written for $1,672.75 - who wrote that check to the government and will that amount be refunded or kept? If the first check for $1,672.75 which was given to the government for the copies is kept then I don't understand the problem. If the check is refunded; why? It sounds like the government is in charge of whether they refund that check or not. - Ted Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:33:10 +0100