Same old Stuff.

It seems Ms. Pfister wasn’t clear exactly what my Public Records Request was so I tried to clear it up for her. Copies of our email interaction yesterday are provided below as well as a small amount of background demonstrating where we stand. Ms. Pfister seems to be saying in her email that what I have received, and the CD I will receive are all that the City has, regarding the Cotton/Straub issue that SHE has knowledge of.

It is unclear to me whether or not the CD contains all text messages and emails from the people involved or not. I don’t know whether or not Ms. Pfister had sought records beyond just asking for them via email as she noted in her 10/10/15 (Below) email to me or simply relied on people or Departments within the City to comply.

You might keep in mind that Bob Dunn, Monique Cotton’s attorney, publicly stated that there were text messages supporting her claim of sexual harassment, I haven’t found those in what I have been provided to date, nor have I found any text messages between Mayor David Condon and anyone else involved in this mess.

 

I realize this is pretty long, but I did shorten it up considerably considering the overall picture.

YESTERDAY’S EMAIL FROM MS. PFISTER (12/9/15)

Mr. Breen:

This is a follow up to my email to you below and is in further response to your November 27, 2015, email, also below.

Under Item No. 1 of your email, clarification is needed.    I am not clear from the information and statements provided under this portion of your request as to what you may be requesting from us.  Are you asking that we proceed with performing redactions of those emails that were contained on the Exemption/Redaction Logs provided? Please clarify.  No request has been made at this time by the other requesters for us to proceed with performing redactions on the emails contained on the Exemption Log.  Are you wanting to appeal whatever redactions were made on the records provided to you under the attached response?  The only thing redacted in the records provided on November 24 is a personal cell phone number.  Please clarify.   Pending clarification from you, if you were to ask for a review of the redactions made or exemptions claimed, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, we would not be able to utilize the State Attorney General’s Office to perform the review since they are an outside agency; and, if we provided them (State Attorney General) un-redacted copies of the emails, we would then no longer be able to claim the exemptions applied.

Under Item No. 2, I will place the CD in the mail to you tomorrow.  The copy fee for the CD is $4, plus postage of 92 cents for a total due of $4.92, with check or money order made payable to the City of Spokane. Please remit payment within 30 days of this email, or by January 7, 2016.

For Item No. 3 of your request, I am unclear as to what remaining text messages you may be awaiting receipt of.  As part of the installment of records provided to you on September 29, I provided you a zip file containing the text messages located by Police Department employee Angie Napolitano’s phone.  I provided you another copy of the texts on October 30, 2015.  On November 24, 2015, I provided you a copy of an Excel file labeled “Sanders – Notes and Cell Records_Redacted.PDF.”  Please clarify what remaining text messages you are awaiting.  You indicated the time frame for your request to be January 1, 2015 through September 5, 2015.   As I referenced in my November 2 email response there were some text messages located in response to the Spokesman request and which have since been released; however, those text messages fall between the time frame of April 2013 and August 2014.  Are those the text messages you are referring to and wanting to obtain a copy of?  You emailed me on November 2, 2015, and stated: “I am only asking that you are responsive to my Public Records Request so that I have all the documents I requested including text messages. How you respond to my request is entirely up to you.”  What remaining text messages are you awaiting receipt of? Who in the City possesses such records?  If you have specific knowledge of any remaining texts in the City’s possession that are responsive to your request and that have not yet been made available, please clarify and advise as to what individual or individuals in the City possess such records and we would be happy to look further into this portion of your request.

Under Item No. 4 of your request, I have not provided any type of third-party notification to the Spokesman Review or its employees.   Please clarify what you mean by this.  Also, please clarify what, if any, records you are attempting to seek under this portion of your email.  Sufficient clarification of the identifiable records you are seeking will be needed in order for us to proceed with a diligent search for responsive records, if any.

Under my email to you yesterday, I provided you copies of the requested Deshais requests.

In response to your question under No. 6, due to the number of emails contained on the log, in the interest of time and other workload, we provided the log as electronically generated.  If you would like us to add a column and manually fill in recipient name(s), please advise and we will then let you know the time frame needed to do that.  In addition, if you would like us to proceed with the redaction of the emails as listed on the log, please advise, and we will then let you know of the anticipated time frame needed to perform the redactions.

With respect to the pending email review, in my November 24 response, I indicated that I would let you know when a first installment of emails was available.  However, I realized in looking back at my October 30 email response to you that I have not received the clarification I was seeking.  You did respond with the comments as reflected under Item No. 3; however, that does not assist with clarifying if or how you would like us to proceed on the email review.   Please provide a confirmation that you would like us to proceed with a review of the 44,500 hits as referenced in my October 30 email to you.  Due to the time and resources involved in reviewing this number of emails and in light of other workload, I feel it prudent to seek this confirmation from you.  I look forward to your confirmation and or clarification in this regard at your earliest convenience.

 

MY RESPONSE (12/9/15)

 

Ms. Pfister,

Please refer to the copy below which is the second page of my September 5th, 2015 Public Records Request. I have also attached copies.

I specifically requested all available text messages by stating this “immediately take the necessary steps to protect and maintain any and all public documents transmitted or contained on public or private computers or cell phones used at any time or by any method for conducting public business with special attention given to but not limited to the following City of Spokane Employees or Elected Officials; David Condon, Theresa Sanders, Nancy Isserlis, Brian Coddington, Heather Lowe, Frank G Straub, Monique Cotton, and Leroy Eadie.”

In my view it is quite clear my request was for all next messages from anyone who has them and I asked that you pay special attention to certain individuals, but not limit your search for records to those individuals. I will again remind you that Mayor David Condon stated on the Mike Fitzsimmons radio show the he and “Frank” were going over their text messages and they would be provided to me. Obviously based on recent media reports there may be documents within the Fire Department, the Parks Department, as well as the Police Department and the Condon Administration, I am only asking a diligent search be done for the records I have requested and they be supplied.

If a diligent search has been conducted by you including reviewing the cell phones and interviewing the users and you have been unable to locate any other responsive documents, please advise me.

With respect to redactions and exemptions. To be very clear I object to any and all redactions made or claims of exemptions made as a result of my request.

 

To clear this up: ” Under Item No. 4 of your request, I have not provided any type of third-party notification to the Spokesman Review or its employees.   Please clarify what you mean by this.  Also, please clarify what, if any, records you are attempting to seek under this portion of your email.  Sufficient clarification of the identifiable records you are seeking will be needed in order for us to proceed with a diligent search for responsive records, if any.”

I thought I was clear when I stated this in my original request,

” further request any and all formal or informal public records request documents made by the Spokesman Review Newspaper regarding complaints or allegations against any and all employees of the City of Spokane including any and all elected officials, such documents to included email or text messages received by or sent from computers or cell phones public or private used to transact public business.”

To be clear I request text messages and emails between City Employees/Officials and Spokesman Review Owners or Employees concerning this issue. I apologize if I wasn’t clear in the beginning.

 

I hope this helps, if not please don’t hesitate to contact me.

 

 

______________________________

 

SOME BUT NOT ALL BACKGROUND

Pfister to Breen 9/29/15 (IT WILL TAKE ONE YEAR TO COMPLY)

With respect to your request for emails, the City’s IT Department has performed a search in the City’s Enterprise Vault (email storage) system.  The parameters utilized for the search are, as follows:

 

1/1/2015 – 9/5/2015

(complaint AND cotton) OR (allegation AND cotton) OR (complaint AND straub) OR (allegation AND straub) OR (transfer AND cotton) OR (complaint AND spokesman) OR (allegation AND spokesman)

 

This search returned approximately 11,000 hits.  The emails will now need to be reviewed for responsiveness to your request and for any exempt information.    At this time, due to the size of the email review and based on our present work load, we estimate requiring at minimum a one-year period of time within which to perform a review of the emails and to conclude your request.  If additional time is needed, we will advise you accordingly.  Likewise, if we are able to conclude the review sooner, we will let you know. 

 

Before we proceed with a review of the emails, please confirm that the parameters utilized for the search are satisfactory to you.  In the alternative, if you wish to make any modifications in the search parameters, please advise.  We would respectfully request that you get back to us at your earliest convenience, or at least by no later than October 9, 2015, as to whether you are satisfied with the search parameters or whether you have any modifications that you would like made in the parameters.

 

Breen to Pfister 9/30/15

 

Ms. Pfister,

Please understand I consider the records you have provided thus far to be un-responsive to my request in a number of areas. Please carefully review my request as to specifics. It is not surprising that the search criterion the City used resulted in “11,000 hits” I will work on a refined search criteria and provide it soon. I realize the production of text messages is somewhat new to you folks but again please review my FOIA and the individuals described. I am aware that some of the documents you have provided me were also provided to the media, however I am requesting production of documents separate and different from any media requests.

 

I feel we should be able to work this out as long as every effort is made on the City’s part to be transparent, follow the PRA and subsequent court cases which apply.

 

Breen to Pfister 10/6/15

Ms. Pfister:

 

As you requested here are some additional search criterion for emails during the time frame I listed.

 

(Cotton AND Fire Department) or (Monique AND Fire Department) or (Cotton AND Park Department) or Monique AND Park Department) or (Frank AND Monique) or (Straub AND Cotton) (Monique AND Condon) or (Spokesman AND Cotton) or (Hatch and Straub) or (Hatch and Straub) or (Graham AND Cotton) or (Graham and Monique) or (Graham and Straub) 0r (Monique AND Transfer) or (Review and Cotton) or (Cotton AND Salary) or (Monique and Pay)

Please pay special attention to emails to and from the following:

garyg@spokesman.com

jonathanb@spokesman.com

nickd@spokesman.com

addyh@spokesman.com

alisonb@spokesman.com

 

I believe I have made it quite clear that I am seeking all records regarding the issue involving the transfer of Monique Cotton out of the Spokane Police Department. Also please recall I have specifically requested in those documents that mention Lt. Mark Griffiths of the Spokane Police Department. I also request an explanation of the redactions based on a claim of Attorney Client Privilege. Please recall the I have also requested that any further copies of text messages include the phone identifiers.

 

 

Pfister to Breen 10/10/2015 (Emails sent to City Departments and Lt. Griffiths)

 

As I mentioned in my September 29 email to you, aside from the pending email review, I will follow up with you on or about October 30, 2015, to advise as to what if any additional documents have been located in response to your request.

 

With respect to my September 30, 2015 email to you, and in light of your October 1 email, I wanted to provide additional information as to the redactions of information on the previously provided documents labeled “HR Records – Redacted.pdf” and the attachment labeled “PRR-ATM00276Redaction.pdf.”  The redacted information in these documents consists of privileged communications between attorney and client wherein opinions are expressed and/or include advice sought or given in the course of the attorney client relationship, and the information is deemed exempt pursuant to RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) (Privileged communications) and Hangarnter v. Seattle, 151 Wn.2d 439 (2004). If you require any further clarification of the redactions made, please let me know.

 

In relation to your October 1 email, this is to advise that your request has been forwarded to Lt. Mark Griffiths.  I previously relayed that your request had been forwarded for review and compiling responsive records, if any, to staff in the following departments:  Police, Human Resources, My Spokane, Parks, and Mayor’s Office.  In addition, your request was forwarded to City Council members and City Council staff.  Other than the records already provided and the pending email review, I am not personally aware as of this date of any additional responsive records to your request.  However, as I mentioned in my September 29 email to you (aside from the pending email review), I will follow up with you on or about October 30, 2015, to advise as to what if any additional documents have been located in response to your request.    

 

I am in the process of working with Angie Napolitano to obtain additional information as it relates to the text messages that have been provided to you.  If you are not really interested in obtaining the additional information as it relates to Ms. Napolitano’s text messages, please let me know at your earliest convenience.  Otherwise, I will plan to follow up with you with respect to the additional information by October 30.

 

 

Breen to Pfister 10/10/15

Ms. Pfister,

Thank you for pointing that out it should read (Hatch and Cotton).

Please utilize any and all search criterion which will provide all documents related to my request and not just the suggestions made here. As you know the results of an initial search will in most cases lead to expansion of the search criteria to locate responsive documents.

 

Pfister to Breen 10/16/15 (IT WILL TAKE TWO YEARS TO COMPLY)

1/1/2015 – 9/5/2015

(Cotton AND Fire Department) or (Monique AND Fire Department) or (Cotton AND Park Department) or (Monique AND Park Department) or (Frank AND Monique) or (Straub AND Cotton) (Monique AND Condon) or (Spokesman AND Cotton) or (Hatch and Straub) or (Hatch and Cotton) or (Graham AND Cotton) or (Graham and Monique) or (Graham and Straub) 0r (Monique AND Transfer) or (Review and Cotton) or (Cotton AND Salary) or (Monique and Pay)

 

The search returned approximately 44,500 hits.  These emails will now need to be reviewed for responsive to your request and for any exempt information.  Due to the size of the email review, we anticipate it will require approximately two years to conclude the review and your request.  Please provide a confirmation that you would like us to proceed with a review of the 44,500 hits. In the alternative, if you would like to make any further adjustments in the parameters utilized for the email search, please advise.  We would appreciate you getting back to us by October 23 as to your preference in this regard.

 

Breen to Pfister 10/17/15

 

Ms. Pfister,

Thank you for your response. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Please provide the following information regarding the ” City’s Enterprise Vault (email storage) system” so I can pass it along and speed up my response:

1) The name and address of the vendor for the “Enterprise Vault system”

2) The exact search engine utilized by the City for document search and retrieval (i.e. AltaVista etc.).

3) The indexing system utilized by the City of Spokane for the “Enterprise Vault System.

4) A specific statement as to why the City of Spokane is unable to conduct a creditable, responsive, and cost-effective document search in response to Public Records Requests utilizing the systems currently in place.

Please understand that I am aware of a recent request made by another citizen (Ryan Holyk death) in which the City of Spokane’s initial response was that it would take approximately 2 years to fulfill the request yet the documents were provided within a few weeks of the City’s initial estimate of a 2-year time frame.

 

I REPORT YOU DECIDE! 🙂 🙂

 

 

Today could be an interesting day when it comes to “The FOIA War”. Yesterday I had this email exchange with Terri Pfister, a key figure in the upcoming “Independent Investigation”. As you can see Ms. Pfister states she will have more information for me today regarding my FOIA request. Let’s all hope it isn’t a claim that all further records are exempt from public disclosure based upon the ongoing investigation exemption to the release of public records.

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting thing happening today is this Editorial appearing in the Spokesman Review. The reason it is interesting is because Ms. Pfister has still not advised me whether or not 3^rd parties, which would include the Spokesman Review have objected to release of the public records I am seeking.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/dec/08/editorial-probe-needs-independence-transparency/comments/

 

“Bender”, whomever that might be, pretty well sums things up in his comment to the Editorial. Bender’s comment was of course deleted the second someone at the SR noticed it. I wonder whom “Bender” actually is? 🙂

 

 

 

 

Terri Pfister did supply me yesterday with copies of the additional Public Records Requests made by Nick Deshais of the Spokesman Review beyond his August 18^th request which were mentioned by Addy Hatch in the SR Comments Section. Here are links to what I have received so far.

 

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/0442ca09-5d64-4cc2-a6d5-03fed2981584

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ec173264-90b9-4c1e-85ad-e6235b984bce

 

 

There are some things I find interesting about these records. The records demonstrate that Nick Deshais was in some type of discussion with former Spokesman Review Employee, and now “Mouth Piece to the Mayor on or about October 8^th 2015 when Deshais requested records regarding “suit filed by Frank Straub”. That brings up some questions at least in my mind regarding Coddington’s letter to the Ethics Committee.

 

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/f62d1459-83c3-43fe-9ac9-1f31475efa49

 

 

It would be interesting to know exactly what the discussions between Deshais and Coddington were but beyond that, I also noted the addition of certain names in Deshais PRR requests of August 20^th and 21^st, he was apparently getting ongoing tips during that time period.

 

 

If you have been following my Blog you likely have noted my efforts to get the Washington State Attorney General involved in this issue, in an effort to get some form of transparency going as well as to determine if there have been violations of the Public Records Act or other matters. On December 7^th I also received this email from ATG. Nancy Krier which you might find interesting.

 

 

 

 

This is the truth as we know it so far!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pacific Northwest Inlander continues to dig and is doing a very good job in keeping readers informed despite continued attempts by the City of Spokane to cover things up.

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/12/04/officer-jennifer-deruwe-on-how-straub-replaced-her-with-monique-cotton

I just want to add a couple of things to the Inlander story to add some context and understanding.

During the time Mayor Condon and Frank Straub were able to push a change in the structure of the Spokane Police Department which divided SPD into separate Divisions there was considerable discussion about the inevitable “Cronyism” the structure change would bring about and this new Inlander article proves the point many including myself were trying to make.

_____________________________________

brianrbreen Shelalal • 3 years ago

Well, we can agree to disagree…I think it is a power grab…we shall see.

 

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/09/mayor-david-condon-gets-more-control-over-spokane/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/mar/24/condon-eyes-civil-service-hiring/

______________________________________

 

Well needless to say a “power grab” and ‘cronyism positioning” like the hiring of Kyle Twohig, was exactly as predicted, and SPD is still suffering from that “cronyism” as both Shelby Smith and Tim Schwering remain in control of two extremely important exempt Divisions at SPD, Investigations and Internal Affairs. The recent revelations regarding Selby Smith (Jim McDevitt’s choice for the position) tipping John Gately about a search warrant being prepared speaks volumes.

 

This September Inlander Article adds even more perspective as to just how bad things are at SPD.

http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/09/30/documents-show-that-cotton-clashed-with-police-union

 

The links below I am providing so my readers can draw their own conclusions regarding some of the background of Condon’s major mishandling of the Cotton/Straub case. The documents were provided to me by the City of Spokane in the initial stages of my on going public records battle.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/521847c0-2451-45b6-9df6-70236ea4dda6

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/438f25d4-c3d3-4493-b560-d01de932a3cb

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/6a548aae-db83-4a7f-8738-fafd7f808d28

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ea4d602a-9111-4e95-aef2-165053d061b5

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/ee15fdd9-6ca1-4da5-8301-776f44af2c55

 

 

 

Let me first state that I have always been a strong advocate for victims of sexual assault and always will be so if anyone wants to accuse me of being anything other than exactly that they will have a battle on their hands. Having said that, keep in mind I have also always been a strong advocate for the truth.

 

There are a number of troubling aspects to these documents in my mind. The documents demonstrate that Monique Cotton’s truthfulness and veracity where called in to question in the past. I also noted that in one of the cases (damage to vehicle) Cotton made and what was alleged to be a false report was made to then Sgt. Lydia Taylor who was retained by Frank Straub and David Condon over the objections of her peers after she was found to be a liar during the investigation of she and her husband regarding steroid use at SPD. The Lydia Taylor issue has never been investigated by the press and apparently the results of that investigation is not being released by SPD as I’ll be darned if I can find it on Schwering’s IA Cases website. Please let me know if I missed it. Taylor of course is now a “Brady Cop” so any statements she might make regarding Cotton’s reporting to her aren’t worth a hill of beans.

 

Among the interesting aspects of the previous Cotton investigations are the emails regarding the cases between all of the players and the redactions to emails between all of the individuals. Those emails of course have been heavily redacted based upon attorney client privilege. The question is what do they show? Were Straub, Isserlis, Lowe, et al protecting Cotton? What position did Straub take regarding Lowe when those accusations were made, etc.? If you read the media below you will find that it gives the appearance that Heather Lowe was trying to shape the investigation… the question is why? One of the things some media are trying to establish now is whether or not Heather Lowe is married to Police Officer Jeff Lowe which of course would add an interesting twist.

 

 

 

 

As a tactical move in my battle over the City regarding my Public Records Request I objected to the redactions and based on the conflict of interest with the parties involved requested an independent appeal review. I agreed to allow the City Hearing Examiner, who also was Frank Straub’s Hearing Examiner to review the documents in the PRR appeal process he did and the expected decision came back that the documents were subject to the Attorney Client Privilege and the redactions will stand at this point. The reason I chose that route will likely be revealed later.

 

The redacted documents above are critical to the negotiated “Independent Joint Investigation” by the City Council and the Condon Administration. For this “Independent Joint Investigation” to be the least bit legitimate Condon MUST turn over all documents completely un-redacted to the investigation.

 

Monique Cotton has responded via email to a number of media stories. Her lawyer Bob Dunn has made public statements that there are text message supporting her allegation of sexual harassment. At this point Ms. Cotton has NOT released any text messages that substantially support her allegation. If they exist now is the time to produce them!

 

 

GREAT JOB INLANDER….KEEP AT IT!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pacific Northwest Inlander published a great story covering the Cotton/Straub case today which even included statements from a labor law attorney on how this matter should have been handled. Kudos to the Inlander!!!

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/behind-closed-doors/Content?oid=2625247

 

There are just a few things I would like to add which might provide some perspective.

___________________________________________________

The quote from the Inlander article regarding “a citizen emailed the media” I suspect may be in reference to the email I sent to the Inlander which included a copy of an anonymous letter I had received in which the writer alleged a conspiracy on the part of the Spokesman Review to withhold the Cotton/Straub story until after the election. There is a copy of the letter in my previous article linked below. I have covered the anonymous letter a number of times and that coverage clearly demonstrates why I am persona non grata with the SR.

https://examplepro.me/2015/11/30/the-doxing-of-david/

 

What I find refreshing in the Inlander story is, whether it was my email or not, the Inlander Reporters followed the lead and actually did some good investigative work. The Inlander story has to be embarrassing for the Spokesman Review since I provided them with the same letter prior to the election, and they did absolutely NO reporting. At the time I received the anonymous letter I was also aware that in November of 2013 Addy Hatch of the Spokesman Review had spiked a story on Frank Straub that would have brought a lot of these issues that are coming out now regarding Straub forward and may very well have prevented this mess.

 

 

 

Another quote from today’s Inlander story is quite telling in that the Inlander got some of the ball rolling even though the SR obviously had much more information than they did and enough info for a story back in August as evidenced by this August 18^th PRR submitted by Nick Deshais one month prior to the September 18^th date.

https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/71218a5a-08e1-4e12-ae21-792a09bc07ff

 

As I have mentioned before Addy Hatch has stated that Nick Deshais submitted two additional PRRs regarding the Cotton/Straub issue a few days after the August 18^th request. IMO, and that of other journalists, the SR had lots and lots of information in August. They also according, to today’s Inlander story, had an email from Cotton denying a relationship between her and Straub. Keep in mind this is well before the election. Also note Brian Coddington a former Spokesman Review employee directly contacted the publisher of the Inlander in an effort to “actively”, “deter the Inlander from looking into the rumors”. That is significant from the standpoint of the anonymous letter I received and provided the SR and later the Inlander which alleged a deal had been made between the SR and the Condon Administration to hold the Cotton story until after the election. The question now is, did Coddington or someone else in the Condon administration also contact the publisher of the Spokesman Review. If you have been following my articles regarding the PRR I made to the City you will see that is one of the questions I have been trying to answer, however the City is still making every effort to block disclosure. I could end up with a big chunk of your money folks by the time this is over and if I do after the lawyers are taken care of I will donated the rest to the Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery (a murder case of mine).

 

_________________________________________

INLANDER STORY

 

Nevertheless, rumors concerning Straub’s relationship with Cotton continued to circulate at City Hall. In mid-Septmber, a citizen emailed the media, alleging an inappropriate relationship between the two. Cotton responded on Sept. 18 with an email to media outlets, saying the rumors were “completely inappropriate, libelous, slanderous, unethical and untrue.”

In the days following Straub’s ouster, Coddington actively sought to deter the Inlander from looking into the rumored issues, calling a reporter a “gossip columnist” for asking to speak with Cotton about them.

“Monique’s move to parks was strictly managerial,” he said then. “End of story.”

Coddington also took the unusual step of calling the Inlander’s publisher to complain about reporters’ questions.

__________________________________________

As an update there are screenshots below of my most recent email to Terri Pfister regarding my PRR. Ms. Pfister is of course a major player in the Condon/Cotton/Straub issue. I have not received any response from Pfister, if she is smart she will follow my advice and turn the entire PRR matter over to the Washington State Attorney General.