The Martin Chronicles has obtained a copy of an e-mail exchange between a resident who placed an open records request and Councilman Mike Pope. The resident sent the first e-mail in the stream to the mayor and courtesy copied the city council. The resident expressed concern to the mayor and council about delaying tactics being used to slow down or stop the receipt of requested documents.
The interim city clerk told the resident that, while she had all the requested documents ready, she could not release them because the “mayor does not allow any records to be released until he reviews them”.
The main problem with the mayor’s standing order to the employees is that there is no provision in the Kentucky open records statutes that allows for a delay in the release of records until they are reviewed by the mayor. In this particular case the resident should not have been denied access to public documents simply because the mayor was out of town.
Mr. Pope decided to involve himself. We are reprinting his e-mail in its entirety, with the exception of the resident’s name. We do not want to be accused of taking Mr. Pope out of context.
Dear ---------
It seems one thing that you may have overlooked . . . .
You seem to assume that the documents you requested are public record. If the Mayor is uncomfortable that the correct decision can be made whether a document is public or not, it seems a reasonable delay for him to review them and make the decision. Sounds like he is actually trying to do the job. If he is out of town for a few days and if he must delay a request for that period, I don’t have a problem with that. As you point out, you have received everything you requested within 3 days despite the mayor’s absence. Everything that happened between your request and when you received the documents within the legal timeframe appears to have been done of your own accord, but you want to use only your efforts as evidence to claim “foul play”.
If you received the documents within the legal time frame . . . were all the antics in between really necessary? Or is it simply to continue the obvious display of disdain it appears to me that you have for Mayor Martin?
Sincerely,
Mike Pope
Aside from Pope’s condescending tone, there are several problems with his e-mail.
First, by statute, the interim city clerk is responsible for making the determination whether or not documents are public records. If she was uncertain, she could contact the city attorney. If Martin is uncomfortable with the interim city clerk’s ability to make such a determination, he needs a new city clerk.
Second, had the resident not insisted that the open records statutes be followed, the release of the records would have been improperly delayed. Despite Mr. Pope’s musings, there is nothing “reasonable” about that.
Third, Pope can sarcastically describe what took place as “foul play”. The Attorney General would describe it more plainly as a violation of the open records statutes.
Fourth, Pope’s description of the resident’s effort to do nothing more than get the city to adhere to Kentucky open records statutes as “antics” is outrageous and offensive.
Finally, Pope questions whether the resident’s effort to get the city to adhere to the statutes is an “obvious display of disdain” for Mayor Martin. Should we then conclude that Mr. Pope believes open records should only be provided to residents who have a favorable opinion of Martin?
Perhaps Pope would be better off if he avoided putting his stamp of approval on a clear violation of Kentucky open records statutes.
It is also ironic that Mr. Pope claims Martin is simply doing his job, being careful to confirm that records are public documents. If only Pope had been so careful before posting a document on his alternative city website that included another resident’s social security number!
