The story below written by Nick Deshais appeared in the Spokesman Review yesterday and dealt with a letter David Condon submitted to the City Council in answer to questions regarding the Cotton/Straub issue and the withholding of public records. The story left out some import facts but did provide a picture on how government always reacts to Public Records Requests so I thought it would be a good idea to provide two general rules on how to submit a Public Records Request without giving away any of my trade secrets.

Condon’s letter was at best comical and it makes me wonder which lawyer helped him prepare it, but I am primarily going to deal with the PRR issue at this point.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/dec/11/mayor-david-condon-apologizes-for-confusion-says-h/

 

Here is one important quote from Deshais’s story regarding how government deals with PRRs:

Cotton’s refusal to lodge a formal complaint almost stopped any information from coming out of City Hall about the reasons for her transfer, Condon wrote in his answers.

While discussing the delay in the release of records, Condon said the city nearly didn’t make public the records that were released Nov. 24, which detailed and shed light on what happened at City Hall leading to Straub’s ouster.

The records “were not initially determined to be responsive” because the request used the word “complaint,” Condon wrote.

“Neither the Human Resources Department nor the Spokane Police Division had any record of ‘complaints’ by Ms. Cotton or against Mr. Straub,” Condon wrote. “To the best of our knowledge, no ‘complaint’ was ever filed by Ms. Cotton or against Mr. Straub.”

 

RULE NUMBER ONE

If you are going to submit a PRR (FOIA) to any government agency you must understand that that agency will use every legal means, and at times illegal means, available to prevent you from having access to the records when those records might reflect in ANY negative way towards the agency. The above quote from Deshais’s story is an example of just ONE method government utilizes, the good ole “Your request was very specific as to the records you wanted and we had/have no responsive records.”

This defense tactic creates a dilemma for the requestor in that a certain amount of specificity is required in any PRR but you have to be very careful that you are not specific to the point it provides for the limited search scope defense Condon falsely asserts in his letter. Deshais did in his August 18^th PRR cover the all-inclusive PRR necessity but IMO went too far after that in his request by using the term “complaints” standing alone in items 2 and 3.

1. Any and all records, documents or emails related to or discussing the transfer of Monique Cotton from the Spokane Police Department to the city’s Parks and Recreation Division.

Deshais August 18^th PRR.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/a5578304-d4d0-4ac8-bef2-483378495b4d

 

One thing to always remember about allegations of misconduct by government employees is that there are several different ways allegations are handled internally and if you limit yourself government will take advantage of your self-limiting request anyway they can. Using the term “complaints” is okay as long as it is followed with an open qualifier that forces government to give you everything you are looking for.

I prefer this type of terminology when I seek government employee misconduct records because it opens the door for nearly everything:

___________________________________

“Any and all documents to include emails and text messages sent or received on any and all public or private cell phones computers utilized in any way to conduct any public business of the City of Spokane relating to any and all complaints or allegations, sustained, not sustained, or catorgorized as inquires made against Frank G. Straub, or Monique Cotton”

___________________________________

 

But make sure you spell check! (categorized) 🙂 🙂

 

On 12/7/2015 I received copies of Nick Deshais’s Public Records Requests regarding Cotton/Straub pursuant to my on-going PRR War with the City. When I opened the records the very first document was his request on Oct 21^st, 2015. I had to chuckle because I knew what he was doing, and it was a good move because it gives an investigative reporter some insight on what other media outlets are doing like for example my Twitter and my Blog. Nick’s Aug. 20^th and 21^st PRRs are okay but he again limits himself to specific individuals without an open qualifier, which can come in handy during your PRR Battle because once you receive your first document dump it inevitably leads to more people and you can always claim non-responsiveness when you run across a name that is obviously involved but no records were supplied…in this case Bob Dunn comes to mind as do others. What Deshais’s Aug 20^th, 21^st PRRs do demonstrate however is that Condon’s statements to the City Council regarding the reason records were withheld until after the election are BUNK. After reviewing all of the records made public so far there are NONE that were not easily accessible to Terri Pfister unless they were being hidden from her as is sometimes the case. There is no reason the records obtained to date could not have been released prior to the election. Part of the defense game is always stall as long as you can in the hopes people will forget or get busy with something else. Just refer to my previous stories about my war.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/f8370d72-69cd-4f4b-847b-64b767dbd0cf

 

Now let me return to explaining some of the facts Nick Deshais left out of his story. The fact is I have been investigating the Cotton/Straub story since before September 5^th, 2015 when I filed my PRR. My first stories regarding the Cotton/Straub case were published well prior to the election beginning on September 26^th, 2015. I made available to the public some of what I had received via my PRR so the public and other media would gain a better understanding of the situation and start carrying the ball. I offered what I had to the SR but they never bothered to contact me or use any of the information I had in their stories. The SR could easily have contacted me, obtained what I had which included text messages between Monique Cotton and Angie Napolitano which show a lot of what was going on. They could have written one hell of a story based on the public documents I had and they didn’t. Some of my documents corroborated some of their sources (yes I know Nick). I know folks at the SR read my stories because I made sure they had them via Twitter and in some cases they even responded negatively. A good lesson for any Investigator or Investigative Journalist to learn is, NEVER EVER DISMISS A SOURCE, even if you think the source is a “confused Jeremiah”, because you may learn Jeremiah isn’t as confused as you think. THE BIG QUESTION IS WHY THE SR HELD BACK A MULTI-SOURCED AND CORROBORATED STORY WITH SUPPORTING PUBLIC RECORDS??

 

These are just a few:

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/653575785387704320

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/653572859999051776

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/653563032111439873

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/649212270866595841

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/647909570925342720

https://twitter.com/MCUBuff/status/647912535149047808

 

Nick Deshais story also links Condon’s letter which for any investigation opens avenues for inquiry not only from what it says, but from what it doesn’t say. Any legitimate investigation of the Cotton/Straub case requires that David Condon and every other players’ statements or testimony is taken under oath, if that isn’t done the investigation is a sham. “Hold Backs”…for those that know what I’m referring to! J J

 

That aside I want to mention some of the comical aspects of Condon’s letter as it pertains to me.

 

______________________________________ 

September 5, 2015

• Brian Breen files public records request for any and all documents to include emails and text messages relating to any and all complaints or allegations made against Frank Straub or Monique Cotton as well as any and all documents from third parties related to transfer of Monique Cotton between January 1, 2015 and September 5, 2015

______________________________________

Yes, David I sure as hell did, and I can tell it has you squirming. You can take two approaches to my PRR. The HIGH road or the LOW road…so far it has been the LOW road, it is entirely up to you.

 

_______________________________________

September 16, 2015

• Jon Snyder files public records request seeking records released to Brian Breen.

_______________________________________

 

Jon you are one of the Council Members from my District all you had to do was ask and I would have given them to you or anyone else interested. Jon, buddy, why does my City Council Member have to do a Public Records Request to get PUBLIC RECORDS?

 

 

RULE NUMBER TWO

 

All Public Records Requests involving government misconduct are battles that have to be conducted tactically and strategically by the requestor. Never forget that!

 

 

 

As Journalists sometimes do, I gave Nick Deshais a heads up that this story was coming and he is welcome to respond to the story in any way he sees fit, including an email to me (he has my email address), in the comments section of my blog, or a story in the SR. If he does write a story for the SR I would hope, he shows me the same curtesy I am giving him despite my SR persona-non-grate status with them.

 

 

BE SURE AND TIP YOUR NEWSPAPER CARRIER THIS CHRISTMAS!

 

 

 

 

This article appeared in yesterday’s Spokesman Review and again demonstrates how the SR continually dropped the ball in obtaining the facts surrounding the Condon/Straub Regime as did the City Council. It was all right in front of them so the question remains…. “Why?”

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/dec/10/spd-assistant-chief-selby-smith-to-retire/

 

 

The screenshot and links below are just a few of the times the SR ignored continued calls for investigative reporting, and again they don’t represent all of the emails sent to the media and City Council trying to get some movement on reporting the continuing complete destruction of the Spokane Police Department.

 

 

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/feb/10/rick-dobrow-named-assistant-spokane-police-chief/comments/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/23/straub-police-reorganization-a-necessary-series/comments/

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/nov/03/one-injured-west-central-shooting/

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/nov/14/court-papers-describe-nonstop-harassment-by/\

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/24/mayor-david-condon-fights-judges-ruling-on-fire/

 

 

 

Right now the City Council is on a critical path in righting the SPD ship which will take several years to right as a result of Condon’s and Straub’s leadership. A legitimate investigation into what was going on at SPD MUST include an audit of SPD’s expenditures including the Forfeiture and Contributions Fund as well as the Trust Fund established at SPD which was under the control of Straub, Smith, Schwering, Dobrow, Meidl, and others during the time Straub was in charge. Over and over I have called for an audit of those funds but to this point the City Council has not taken the appropriate action. An audit of SPD expenditures IMO could be a key element in the defense of, in what I consider the unlikely event, Straub goes beyond his claim against the City and actually does file a lawsuit. The problem the City Council could very well have is that they approved all of the expenditures without the least bit of investigation and they might end up looking bad…but it needs to been done anyway.

 

I have had discussions with other reporters, including from the SR on how to proceed with an investigative report into SPD expenditures, and offered suggestions on how to go about it. Each and every time I emphasized just how tedious and exhaustive that process would be including having to fight the FOIA Battle, then analyzing all of the data and tracing receipts and expenditures. The best bet is for the City Council to get off their duff and get the audit process started…then we media can report on it.

 

THE SAGA AND THE EMBARRASMENT CONTINUES!!!

 

Here are just a few of my old comments regarding Carly Cortright. Keep in mind my efforts to bring things to light included emails to the SR and others. What say you Addy Hatch, Gary Graham, and Nick Deshais???

 

Is there any wonder why the SR Doesn’t like my comments???

 

 

 

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2015/feb/11/spokane-county-commission-approves-29-million/ 

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2015/may/19/spokane-county-workers-salaries-trail-city-of/ 

http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/11/spokane-planning-director-fired-partly-for/

 

 

 

 

 

 

This story appears today in the PNW Inlander and should open some eyes.

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/cop-culture/Content?oid=2631527

 

More people are coming forward on the record that help to establish Monique Cotton’s allegation of sexual harassment against Frank Straub. Brad Arleth and Carly Cortright it appears would offer great testimony in any lawsuit Frank Straub might bring against the City of Spokane, there are several others that have not yet come forward publically who would do the same.

 

As I have mentioned before the only thing Frank Straub via Mary Schultz has done is file a claim against OUR CITY, at this point there is no lawsuit and may never be one as a lawsuit by Frank Straub would bring to light a litany of facts which would make his desire to have a career in law enforcement impossible, if it isn’t already. There is a good possibility the claim filed by Straub is just a face saving attempt similar to the claim filed by Straub’s right hand girl in Indianapolis, Ellen Corcella, who was fired shortly after Straub was booted out of Indianapolis and we ended up with him.

 

This Inlander story also goes to the heart of a couple of issues which I brought up long ago and the Spokesman Review ignored for some reason. Carly Cortright was transferred from SPD to City Hall long before Monique Cotton while her salary was being paid by SPD, primarily for the same reasons but another significant reason to we citizens to consider is this quote from the story.

 

“Cortright, who had worked for the police department for more than a decade before she moved to a new job in City Hall two years ago, constantly butted heads with Straub over budgetary issues. For her, the culture created under his leadership punished honesty.”

 

In all of my dealings with Carly Cortright I have found her to be extremely honest and she has never given me reason to think otherwise. So the question is, what did Straub want her to be dishonest about was it illegal, or unethical, or dishonest expenditure of OUR MONEY or exactly what was it? The other question we have to ask exactly what were the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Carly Cortright: WHAT DID MAYOR CONDON AND TERESA SANDERS KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?

 

Despite my continued attempts to bring the Cortright situation to light, via the Spokesman Review and other places, Condon and Sanders were able to keep it hidden form the public until the Cotton story hit. One would have to think both Condon and Sanders would have considered their ability to keep the Cortright issue hidden when dealing with the Cotton issue, if it worked once it should work again…right?

 

What is very sad for all of us is that the Spokesman Review, the local media with the biggest budget, the largest reader/viewership, and arguably the most 4^th Estate influence sat on everything concerning Condon and Straub. The big question is…Why? I will repeat…Addy Hatch was provided back in 2013 all of the information she needed regarding Frank Straub and his background that should have been used to put the brakes on what has gone on and continues to go on but she sat on it…Why? Addy Hatch told the individual suppling the information (not me) that she had assigned the story to Jonathan Brunt but it never appeared in print…. Why?

 

ANOTHER GOOD ONE INLANDER!!!!!