| Lockwood's Requests Cost County Over $1600 |
|
|
|
| Written by Lynne LaMaster | |
| Friday, 15 August 2008 | |
|
It's a terrific idea, one that resonates with everyday voters. 'Put the interests of the people before politics.' But does Lockwood live by her own standards? During the campaign, in debates and on her website, Lockwood has been trying to prove that Carol Springer is actively promoting an increase of 1/2 cent to the county sales tax. She implies that the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, led by Carol Springer, wants to enact such a sales tax without voter approval. When Lockwood offered 'documentation' to this effect, Prescott eNews examined it carefully. The offered documentation was a copy of an email from Craig Sullivan, Executive Director of the County Supervisor's Association to Senator Tom O'Halleran. When we proceeded to do our own investigation, consisting of research and interviews, we found no indication whatsoever that Springer was an active proponent of this additional tax. (The articles detailing the information are all listed in the sidebar lower down on this page in case you haven't read them yet.) Lockwood's Response
The first article written by Prescott eNews on this situation was published on Friday, July 25, 2008. How did Lockwood respond? By having her attorney, Gil Shaw, file a request on the following Monday, July 28, 2008, for "Any and all documents, including electronic messages and internal communications of Yavapai County, the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, any individual Supervisor, and or their staff, the Clerk of Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, the Yavapai County Manager, and any agents of any of these entities or persons concerning the County Supervisor's Association. This request is meant to include the last from the present back to January 1st, 2004." And by the way, Shaw expected a "prompt response" to his request. Prescott eNews asked Shaw several times what the purpose of this request was. To date, Shaw has ignored these questions. What Lockwood ReceivedIn a letter dated August 7, 2008, Deputy County Attorney Jack H. Fields wrote to Shaw and said that county staff had produced 6691 pages of documents, and the cost of reproduction was $1,672.75, payable to the Yavapai County Treasurer. (This was a bargain compared to the actual cost to the county, as you will read below.) But, did the Lockwood campaign choose to pay the expenses incurred at her expense? No, not exactly. Instead, they chose to "inspect" the documents - for free. According to Julie Ayers, Yavapai County Administrator, on August 13: Georgene and 2 others came to the County yesterday to inspect the documents that the County prepared pursuant to the public records request. They spent more than 6 hours reviewing the documents and identified 604 pages that they wish to obtain. They did not leave with any documents. The County Attorney's office is preparing a communication to Gil Shaw to inform them of the number of pages that were identified and the related cost. Thus, Fields wrote to Gil Shaw on August 14: After reviewing the records we have produced for inspection, your client identified 604 pages of documents she wishes to have copied. The cost of reproduction is $151.00. You may pick up the documents at the Prescott office of the Board of Supervisors, 1015 Fair Street, Prescott, on payment of the reproduction costs. Please make the reproduction costs payable to the Yavapai County Attorney. At What Actual Cost?
So, how much time did it take county staff to fulfill Shaw's request on behalf of Lockwood? According to Ayers, this project took a total of 57.25 hours of staff time, broken down as follows:
Total actual man hour cost, not including paper, ink or copier expenses: $1781.01 And Yavapai County will only be reimbursed $151 of that cost? Yikes! Why Make All These Copies?We also asked Ayers why the county would make copies of all 6691 pages before they knew what Lockwood would want? She responded by email, I believe that the statute, and the corresponding county procedure to charge $.25 per page, anticipated paper files being requested for inspection and reproduction. However now that the majority of county documents are maintained electronically, is it not as simple as “pulling a file”. For example, in the past if a member of the public wished to inspect and view a paper file a clerk would simply pull the file, monitor the inspection, and copy any pages requested for $.25 per page which would cover any costs of responding to the request. In this instance, the request involved all electronic records since January of 2004 by many different users of the county computer system and was an expedited request. In order to respond to the request our MIS department had to identify and search personal archives and load backup tapes to find older information. This took significant time and was not able to be completed by clerks, thus increasing our expenses. Also, because of security concerns, it is not realistic to allow access to our computer systems, thus the reason the documents were produced on paper. The right of the public to request public records is a cornerstone of open government and it is my goal to make the process as efficient as possible. Since I believe the original intent of the statute was to enable entities to recover all costs in relation to a public records request, I would like to see the County Clerk’s Association review the statute and county procedures to see if they warrant a review in light the way we all now conduct business. It Does Seem to Be a HabitAccording to Phil Bourdon, Yavapai County Public Works Director, the Friends of Williamson Valley (FWV) has put in three requests for documents in the past.
By Saturday, September 29, 2007, Lockwood had started actively campaigning for Supervisor, according to the Walking Prescott website. The author, Granny J, described the 'crash course' Lockwood was currently undergoing in order to try to become better educated in the issues. Regarding the document requests, Bourdon explained, A cursory review of my records show that Yavapai County Public Works had at least three (3) requests to review our entire files on the Williamson Valley Road projects by members of Friends of Williamson Valley. When requested we would take all of the files on the projects (correspondence, e-mail, contracts, etc.) and place them at a central location such as our front counter. If they wanted copies of specific documents or files our office staff would make the copies and charge them prior to leaving. The first review appears to have occurred in April 2006. I found receipts for $30 on April 14, 2006 & $72.90 on May 3, 2006. The second review on or about May 25, 2007 and a receipt for $6.75 was issued for copies. The third review occurred on April 30, 2008. No copies were requested that I know of and the members appeared to be photographing the files instead of requesting copies. Obviously, the third review occurred after Lockwood was no longer president of the organization. Whether or not she was involved is unclear and should not be assumed. However, it might be of interest that, according to the FWV, Gil Shaw is also the attorney for this organization, in addition to his duties in representing Lockwood. Putting the Interests of People Before Politics?In requesting all these document relating to the County and the County Supervisor's Association, Lockwood caused the county to incur unreimbursed expenses of well over $1600. It's interesting to look at what she does, compared to what she says she'll do. For example, Lockwood is running a series of radio ads, in which Shaw, her attorney, asks a key question, and Lockwood answers. The ad about the county budget kind of says it all: Shaw: A conversation with Georgene Lockwood, candidate for District 1, Yavapai County Board of Supervisors. Georgene Lockwood, Yavapai County is having it's share of budget problems. How would you manage county finances? Lockwood: Pay as you go financing for capital improvements and managing the budget the way you would manage your own. That keeps our taxes low and government working and that's why I approve this message. Yep, that's right. Lockwood is just putting the interest of politics before people - no wait! That's backwards. It's supposed to be that Lockwood will put the interests of people before politics.
Starting when?
Got an opinion about this story? Now you can participate in
the poll
* Editor's note: When writing the editorial, Lockwood Spends $1672.75 For A Pile of Potential "Dirt" we did not understand at the time that Lockwood could avoid paying the fee of $1,672.75. Obviously, we were in error, and are happy to take this opportunity to clarify the situation.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Trackback(0)
Comments (11)
  written by Ted, August 16, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Lynne LaMaster, August 16, 2008
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.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jane, August 16, 2008
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
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Anonymous51, August 16, 2008
It should be noted that Jack and Mariann Littell resigned from Friends of WIlliamson Valley in October 2007.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Lynne LaMaster, August 16, 2008
Thanks for letting us know that Jack and Mariann Littell resigned - it is not noted anywhere on the FWV website. I appreciate the update.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Concerned Taxpayer, August 18, 2008
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. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Ted, August 18, 2008
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. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Concerned Taxpayer, August 18, 2008
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. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Ted, August 18, 2008
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? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Concerned Taxpayer, August 18, 2008
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. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Write comment
|
"For too long, I have seen politics put before the interests of the people..." states Georgene Lockwood in her very well-done c
What does that have to do with Lockwood? Well, Lockwood was the President of the non-profit FWV until August 31, 2007, shortly before she decided to run against Carol Springer. According to the 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
 |
