A second, full-time job...Pt. 5

I previously wrote about requests for information from the City of Great Falls. I received two responses this morning from the City Clerk. The first one is a little difficult to follow because she responded in the body of the email. Like she did, I will color my email blue, and her responses red:

Hi Peggy,

Thanks for your help on this.

Regarding the documentation for the contributions, I am not necessarily looking for what we attached to the wire transfer form. I am looking for information provided by SME to substantiate the request for payment of additional capital. For example, if you consider the March 14, 2006, contribution, we initially received a "Project Draw Request" from SME. This document contained information supporting SME's need for funds.

I am assuming that someone from SME did not simply call the City and say "we need $213,357.20," and "we need $250,000.00." Someone must have provided some documentation to support the City's contributions of over $400,000.00. I am seeking copies of that. Thanks for the clarification. I have the additional information to send you or if you want you can pick up. Please let me know your preference. After checking with Coleen on this, she noted it is likely that she received the information directly from Tim Gregori when each of the members was presented with their share of the draw request during one of the SME Board meetings and therefore no
transmittal letter exists.

Can I assume that the rules of operation and schedules of rates, charges and classifications are being refused under the City's claimed exception for preliminary drafts? Was this work in progress at the time of our inquiry, or was it started in response thereto? As you're aware, the Board is directed to consider and recommend rules from time to time. The rules of operation have been a work in progress and have yet to be compiled into a single document and formally adopted by the ECPI Board and the City Commission. The schedule of rates, while they exist in Resolution 9500 and 9648 as well as all the purchase power agreements, were not compiled into one single sheet labeled "schedule of rates." What we do have is attached. (The attachment can be found here.)

Finally, it does seem that we are getting close to completely satisfying my requests, with two exceptions. First, since I have not been through all of the materials you have provided yet, I cannot affirm they are complete. Since I know the volume of information you have, I can only imagine this is a time consuming task.

Second, I am not convinced I have been provided with a complete copy of all correspondence, emails, etc., regarding the project. Since this information is maintained by the individual departments, and since you are provided access to it only as determined by the department heads (in this case, Mr. Lawton and Ms. Balzarini), I am not sure you have the ability to produce the information in light of the department heads' failure or refusal to provide it to you. I am presently considering alternative avenues of obtaining this correspondence since it seems you and I have reached a dead end. I do not blame you for that, but neither do I believe this impasse represents a good faith effort to comply with the letter or spirit of the law by certain City officials.

Thanks again, and I look forward to hearing from you.

I responded as follows:

Hi Peggy,

Thank you for your responses. A little follow up.

First, regarding the documentation to support the City's contributions, you believe that Ms. Balzarini received the information to support the draw requests during an SME board meeting. If it was in writing, I would like copies of it. If Ms. Balzarini took notes, I would like copies of them. I am assuming that the City did not make capital contributions of over $400,000.00 without any written documentation of what those funds were used for by SME. (Editor's Note: I re-read this, and I read it incorrectly the first time. They apparently do have written documentation, and I have sent someone over to pick it up.)

Second, I asked about the rules of operation and schedules of rates, charges and classifications. You state that the Rules of Operation have been a "work in progress." Was this work in progress at the time of our inquiry, or was it started in response thereto? Also, I appreciate your reference to Resolution 9500, but I don't think the City is representing that that is its "schedule of rates, charges, and classifications" is it? As you know, such a schedule is required by state law. The reason that Resolution 9500 does not appear to be such a schedule is that it discusses one rate and is silent about classifications. Further, the rate set forth on the schedule do not match up with the exhibit you forwarded me with your email. So, it appears that we still do not have such a schedule but one will be proposed to the ECP Board very soon. Was the preparation of the schedule commenced in response to our inquiry?

Thanks for everything

I also received this response from Ms. Bourne:

I delayed responding to you until after you attended the ECPI Board meeting on Monday, and hoped you found Mr. Gregori's and Mr. Lawton's explanation of the nature of the City's ownership share of Highwood useful I am wondering if you still need for this information and if you do, if you want to modify it in any way. I will provide anything that meets the definition of public record in MCA 2-6-202 and is a City record. Your request does include documents specifically excluded in subsection C. Those items will not be provided. I look forward to any additional direction you can provide.

Peggy"

She also helpfully enclosed the language of MCA 2-6-202. I responded to her this morning as follows:

Hello Peggy,

Thank you for your response. I did find Mr. Lawton's and Mr. Gregori's presentation helpful. It raised a couple additional questions, though.

They said that the City's share of the power will be whatever is left over after the cooperatives get theirs. They also said that any City contribution for development costs over the City's eventual share (percentage-wise) will be refunded or credited to the City's account. I would like copies of any writings that evidence those two statements or relate to them. In other words, what creates the right to a share of the power, whatever it is, and what creates the right to a refund of overpaid development contracts. I am assuming we have some sort of contractual right to power and a refund, not just verbal discussions. In addition to contracts or memos creating the rights, I would like any other documents that discuss or relate to these
issues.

As far as the items that the City maintains are not public because they are "for reference purposes only, a preliminary draft, a telephone messaging slip, a routing slip, part of a stock of publications or of preprinted forms, or a superseded publication," I understand you are refusing to produce them. Can you at least identify them for me?

Thank you

Do you see why this is like a full-time job?