Just to update folks on my PRR War with the City I thought I would let you know I have received two more Nissen Affidavits, one from City Attorney Nancy Isserlis, and one from Interim Chief Rick Dobrow. They are both linked below. The City Attorney’s Affidavit I find interesting for a number of reasons, but it is something other reporters should take careful note of.
As you know not everyone involved have provided Nissen Affidavits including these folks;
Mayor David Condon
Fire Chief Bobby Williams
Lt Mark Criffiths
Isserlis Nissen Affidavit
Dobrow Nissen Affidavit
An important date to keep in mind is the date of my original PRR September 5th, 2015. The date will become important later, but for now just recall that my September 5th PRR, unlike Nick Deshais PRR included all of the necessary request elements, and I did receive on September 29th,2015 text messages between Straub’s secretary Angie Napolitano and Monique Cotton which laid out what was going on long before the election. I did report on those text messages long before the election and offered what I received via my PRR to the SR who never took advantage of the offer. Like any good investigative reporter, I reported what I had to my readers prior to the Mayoral Election, the SR of course did not.
For those of you who may have forgotten I received this anonymous letter in the mail, which I also offered to all of the local media but have only been taken up on the offer from out of town media.
Below I have copied some important RCW cites for readers to consider regarding the ongoing “Independent Investigation” being conducted by a consultant for the Spokane City Council. The RCW cites are some of the things any investigator worth their salt would take into consideration when conducting the type of investigation, she is responsible for. It is import for me to reiterate that the City Council by virtue of the City Charter has subpoena power and the power to take sworn statements, if as Citizens we find that those two powers were not used during the investigation we all will know just how legitimate the investigation was. The Condon Administration is now requiring our elected City Council Members to obtain the information regarding what the Administration is actually doing via a PRR rather than being open and transparent with our elected representatives (Intermodal Precinct Issue is but one example), I of course have offered what I have which is very telling and the Nissen Affidavits are of course critical to their investigation as is all of my documented interaction with Ms. Pfister, Ms. Farnsworth, and Mr. Dalton.
I would like to welcome David Wasson as a new follower, it will be helpful for him in his new position since my columns are untainted by political ideology it may give him a clue as to how the media should handle issues.
Destruction, disposition of official public records or office files and memoranda—Record retention schedules.
(1) Any destruction of official public records shall be pursuant to a schedule approved under RCW 40.14.050. Official public records shall not be destroyed unless:
(a) Except as provided under RCW 40.14.070(2)(b), the records are six or more years old;
(b) The department of origin of the records has made a satisfactory showing to the state records committee that the retention of the records for a minimum of six years is both unnecessary and uneconomical, particularly if lesser federal retention periods for records generated by the state under federal programs have been established; or
(c) The originals of official public records less than six years old have been copied or reproduced by any photographic or other process approved by the state archivist which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original.
(2) Any lesser term of retention than six years must have the additional approval of the director of financial management, the state auditor and the attorney general, except when records have federal retention guidelines the state records committee may adjust the retention period accordingly. An automatic reduction of retention periods from seven to six years for official public records on record retention schedules existing on June 10, 1982, shall not be made, but the same shall be reviewed individually by the state records committee for approval or disapproval of the change to a retention period of six years.
Recommendations for the destruction or disposition of office files and memoranda shall be submitted to the records committee upon approved forms prepared by the records officer of the agency concerned and the archivist. The committee shall determine the period of time that any office file or memorandum shall be preserved and may authorize the division of archives and records management to arrange for its destruction or disposition.
[1999 c 326 § 1; 1982 c 36 § 5; 1979 c 151 § 52; 1973 c 54 § 4; 1957 c 246 § 6.]
Records officers—Designation—Powers and duties.
Each department or other agency of the state government shall designate a records officer to supervise its records program and to represent the office in all contacts with the records committee, hereinafter created, and the division of archives and records management. The records officer shall:
(1) Coordinate all aspects of the records management program.
(2) Inventory, or manage the inventory, of all public records at least once during a biennium for disposition scheduling and transfer action, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the state archivist and state records committee: PROVIDED, That essential records shall be inventoried and processed in accordance with chapter 40.10 RCW at least annually.
(3) Consult with any other personnel responsible for maintenance of specific records within his or her state organization regarding records retention and transfer recommendations.
(4) Analyze records inventory data, examine and compare divisional or unit inventories for duplication of records, and recommend to the state archivist and state records committee minimal retentions for all copies commensurate with legal, financial, and administrative needs.
(5) Approve all records inventory and destruction requests which are submitted to the state records committee.
(6) Review established records retention schedules at least annually to insure that they are complete and current.
(7) Exercise internal control over the acquisition of filming and file equipment.
If a particular agency or department does not wish to transfer records at a time previously scheduled therefor, the records officer shall, within thirty days, notify the archivist and request a change in such previously set schedule, including his or her reasons therefor.
[2011 c 336 § 818; 1982 c 36 § 4; 1979 c 151 § 51; 1973 c 54 § 3; 1957 c 246 § 4.]
Public officer making false certificate.
Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he or she knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Other violations by officers.
Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall willfully disobey any provision of law regulating his or her official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.
Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]
I REPORT YOU DECIDE!