A few overdue “things” we feel the need to address with you:

1) Don’t promise things you cannot (or will not deliver): In a Facebook chat between PV Editor Bill Simon and whoever the person is handling Facebook chat, a conversation ensued around February 24 and February 28th, 2012 whereby the MAVEN-person offered to Simon the opportunity to email MAVEN to obtain a copy of their “Form 990.”

What is Form 990? Oh, that’s just the little public document that every 501(c)(3) must file with the IRS to demonstrate that they are in accordance with IRS Tax law regarding 501(c)(3) organizations.

Also…it appears that there actually is an IRS Rule that basically states that if you are a 501(c)(3), you must provide a copy of any and every Form 990/Form990EZ someone wants to see. “Someone” being any member of the public.

Now, in the case of Simon’s repeated requests for a copy of MAVEN’s Form 990 via email as the MAVEN “person” indicated he could use to get a copy emailed to him, no one at MAVEN ever responded with an emailed copy of their Form 990. It’s as if MAVEN apparently believes they can tell falsehoods in conversations with the General Public, and just be dismissive in actually following through on requests.

2) Turnabout is fair play: Did you guys at MAVEN know there was an actual “Complaint Form” the IRS developed to allow members of the Public to communicate to them in the cases of 501(c)(3) organizations who fail to follow tax law? No?

Here’s the Form 13909 with easy to fill-in updateable PDF blanks (anyone wishing to complain to the IRS about MAVEN, please feel free to take a copy of this PDF…)

AND…you will note that there are a few check-boxes there that asks whether an organization has:

a) Engaged in excessive lobbying activities
b) Refused to disclose or provide a copy of Form 990 when it was requested.

One might (rightly) ask what constitutes a “lobbying activity?” So glad you asked. Here’s a link to the IRS’s definitions of “lobbying.” (Hint: The IRS definition of “lobbying” is not the same as what is in OCGA)

3) But, what is MAVEN’s Tax ID#? Ohhh…yeahhh…, that is a bit of a problem, isn’t it? After all, if you break IRS law by not providing a copy of the Form 990s upon request, then, golly, how does someone obtain a Tax ID in order to file a complaint???

Oh! (hand slap to forehead). Golly…there might be some online source to obtain Form 990s of “supposedly” (cough!-cough!) compliant (hack!-hack!) 501(c)(3) organizations like MAVEN, eh?

Wow! This danged new phenomenon called the “Internets” is just the cooooolest thing, isn’t it?

So, have you guys over at 235 Andrew Young Boulevard in Atlanta calculated what 5% of $2,000,000 is? Or, 5% of $6,000,000? Are these big numbers or small numbers in comparison to the normal pocket change you guys carry?

It’s okay, man. We’ll help you with the math around this time next year when we view your 2012 Form 990 / 2012 Form 990EZ.

Rumors have it that there is a developing “list” out there of pro-TSPLOST candidates running for political office that PV’s taking a keen interest in. Why? Because, if you’re running as a “Republican” and you are for a “tax hike,” no matter what you claim, you are not a “conservative.”

AND…since we have this trivial little matter of a national election for a new figurehead to be put in charge of the U.S.A. occurring on November 6, 2012, in the mindset of many true fiscal conservatives, anyone running for office for any public office in Georgia who parallels the person (and the political party) currently occupying the White House in their approach to taxpayer dollars in any way, should be identified for voters to know and recognize.

And, as the character of Bluto did in the movie Animal House, PV would like to take this opportunity to assign special, easy-to-remember nickames of those politicians on that growing list of tax hike supporters.

Cobb County Commission Chair Tim “The Tool” Lee: If Tim Lee wasn’t county commission chairman, would anyone at the Cobb Chamber of Commerce actually care about him at all? (Brian Noyes or Seth Millican, please chime-in if you can offer a cogent opposing viewpoint here…?)

Cherokee County Commission Chair Buzz “Space Cadet” Ahrens: Athrens’ infamous stance on the T-SPLOST is “I’m for the T-SPLOST, but I don’t approve of the current project list for the Atlanta Region.” Yeahhhh…like that choice of “changing” the project list is not what is going to be on the ballot on July 31st, Buzz. Buzz? Are you there, Buzz? Yo’, Buzz! (knocking on space helmet)…

Brandon “The Pirate” Beach, Candidate for State Senate District 21: So, what does a pirate want most? Loot, of course. And, in the case of the T-SPLOST, anyone in favor of T-SPLOST wants all your loot for the next 10 to 40 years.

Now, why is Beach named “The Pirate?” Two reasons, which just happen to exist and no one can blame PV of being “mean”: 1) There is a ‘Brandon’s Beach’ on the island of Barbados, which has a rich history of being associated with pirates…some even to this day.

And, 2) with Beach being from Louisiana, which just happens to also be the home state of Pirate Jean Laffite, it all just fits so well.

Prologue

This particular issue of the Political Vine was inspired by one guy making, perhaps, the most astute observation that I’ve ever heard in consideration of trying to understand what happens to cause the melee of political personality clashes between “Ron Paul People” and “Every Other Republican.”

Everyone in the GOP is aware of these clashes, whether you are “Old Guard,” “New Guard,” or “RP supporters.” RP people cannot understand, for the life of them, why their arguments about the rules, the Constitution, the Bible, etc. do not penetrate the conscious minds of longtime GOP members (i.e., the GOP Establishment).

Furthermore, the “old timers” in the GOP also don’t quite get why a lot of the RP supporters just don’t ease their way into the GOP stream, and “learn the ropes” in a quieter, less argumentative manner.

Well…perhaps there is a bit of a scientific explanation (beyond the quick-thought of “those other guys are ******* nuts!”) that can explain this clash…and, in presenting this theory, it is my hope that some of you in the various leadership positions on all sides of the GOP will read this, consider it to possibly be an accurate explanation, and hopefully, come around to gaining a little better understanding of the other person’s point of view.

Because, with just the tiniest of better understanding about what’s going on in the other person’s head, the fear you feel will begin to dissipate…and you might realize the other person is not your true enemy.

And, yes, a lot of the clashes amongst people (especially in the powder-keg world of politics) is due to a “fear” that one or both parties to an argument have, whether of losing power, losing control, losing political position, losing their sense of self-worth, losing…whatever someone feels they own and they view their adversary as someone else who wants to take that away from them.

Though you may not believe it, all I wish for the political world is peace, harmony, and happiness (at least until college football season rolls around and I can ramp-up my annual war on Dawgs…:-)

Myers-Briggs

Some time ago, either in high school or in college, I went through an exercise of taking tests that determined my “personality type.” There are several different types of personality tests out there, but the one in particular that I took, and that I accept to be the most “correct,” is called the “Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator.”

There are actually 16 different personality types in the Myers-Briggs construct. Your personality type is something you were basically born with, and it doesn’t change too much from one of the Myers-Briggs 16 types to any other MB type. If you’ve never heard of this type of test, here is an online version that is pretty good (and free) that you can take and figure out something about yourself…as well get an understanding of why you process information and analyze things the way you do, and why someone else processes information the way they do.

My personality type is INTJ, and we are a type that is about 1% of the population. We are quite the rarity.

If you wish to know the more realistic, practicing view of what an INTJ type is, read this Website. As a self-appointed leader of the INTJ Caucus Type, I freely invite and encourage the 99% of the general population to read this latter description so you may get a better understanding of what I’m going to discuss regarding GOP politics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Interesting viewpoint from the NAACP of DeKalb County, who is in opposition to the Transportation SPLOST:

http://dekalbganaacp.blogspot.com/2012/02/vote-no-t-splost.html?m=1

Rumors have it that State Rep Earl Ehrhart may be under the mistaken impression that it is the Georgia State Legislature that has authority over how Community Improvement Districts (“CIDs”) spend tax dollars.

PV Offers Exhibit A: In today’s Marietta Daily Journal article detailing the money spent by the Cumberland CID and the Town Center CID (both located in Cobb County) on “educating” the public about traffic and the T-SPLOST vote coming-up this July 31st, Rep. Ehrhart stated the following about the half-million dollars being transferred from the CIDs to the organization called “MAVEN:

“That’s something that will have to be looked into next year [via the General Assembly]…I thought they got the message on that. That’s a shame. It’s certainly using tax money to advocate for (an election). I’m hoping they’re not successful in buying it.”

PV Offers A Disagreement via Exhibit B: In actuality, it is NOT the “legislature” at all that governs how a CID spends its tax dollars, but it is the Georgia Constitution that governs what they are allowed to spend their money on.

CIDs only exist under a specific section of the state constitution, Article IX, Section VII. The Legislature did not “create” them, and therefore it has no power to “regulate” them. The CIDs are only allowed to do what the state constitution specifically authorizes them to do by letter of law, and they are allowed to do nothing else beyond those boundaries.

What does the constitution say about how a CID can spend money? Let’s examine that right now:

Article IX, Section VII, Paragraph III, Sub-Paragraph (c)…2nd to the last line at the bottom of Page 80 states as follows: “The law creating or providing for the creation of a community improvement district shall provide that the proceeds of taxes, fees, and assessments levied by the administrative body of the community improvement district shall be used only for the purpose of providing governmental services and facilities which are specially required by the degree of density of development within the community improvement district and not for the purpose of providing those governmental services and facilities provided to the county or municipality as a whole.”

Reading a little bit further down in Paragraph III, there is this additional statement in the Georgia Constitution: “The proceeds of taxes, fees, and assessments so levied, less such fee to cover the costs of collection as may be specified by law , shall be transmitted by the collecting county or municipality to the administrative body of the community improvement district and shall be expended by the administrative body of the community improvement district only for the purposes authorized by this Section.”

In short, Ladies, Gentlemen, Rep Ehrhart, & Tad Leithead, et al…none of this money being spent on “educating the public” by ANY CID is authorized by the Georgia Constitution. NONE. ZERO.

Additionally, MAVEN (which stands for Metro-Atlanta Voter Education Network) is not located anywhere in or near Cobb County (they are located at 250 Williams St., Suite 2332, Atlanta, GA 30303, which is nowhere near Cobb County).

Therefore, these CIDs are giving money to MAVEN, which is an organization that does not build: “…roads, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, devices to control the flow of traffic on streets and roads; Parks or recreational areas or facilities; Storm water and sewage collection and disposal systems; Development, storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of water; Public transportation; or Terminal and dock facilities and parking facilities…” as is expressly specified in Paragraph II of this Section of the Georgia Constitution to be the ONLY items a CID is expressly-authorized to spend money on.

And, here’s just an easy way to understand this without plowing thru the constitutional excerpts provided above: Let’s say PV is completely in error, and that the CIDs are allowed to spend their money on educating or supporting a tax referendum.

So, assuming they are allowed to do this, could they then invest CID tax dollars into…say…a Nevada-based brothel if that brothel purchased billboard space on I-75 whereby 99.99999% of the square footage of the billboard’s advertising area was “Stuck in traffic? Remember you have a choice to change transportation in Metro-Atlanta on July 31st, 2012″ and the only thing the brothel had on there in tiny print was “Paid for by SuzysHouseofPleasure.com”

Would this be a legal use of CID money? C’mon, lawyers of certain politically-connected law firms in Cobb and Gwinnett County…Defend the CID in this hypothetical situation here. What is stopping a CID from spending their money on ANYTHING like this, if a majority of the CID board voted in favor of doing that? Do tell us. (Or, don’t, since you actually won’t be able to due to the Georgia Constitution.)

PV’s Conclusion: So, what does all this mean? Well, besides the CCID Board acting in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the only way to make them address their illegal acts is to take the Cumberland CID to court…and the proper authority to address the unlawful-unconstitutional-illegal spending of tax dollars by all these CIDs for “educating” on a tax referendum is in the Superior Court Circuit in which each CID is located.

That is the only place anyone will get something accomplished. The Georgia Legislature has no authorization or jurisdiction, but the Superior Court does have jurisdiction over how money is spent by any CID, as the Superior Court is the proper venue to challenge any state, county, or local governmental entity for violations of their existence via the Georgia Constitution.

This is why the CIDs (any and all CIDs located all over the metro-Atlanta area should be taken to court if they are using tax money in connection with the TIA/T-SPLOST vote) need to be sued in their local Superior Court circuit for unconstitutional use of tax dollars. Ignore what CID lawyers claim. They are wrong. Beat them in court.

To: Mr. Sam Olens, Attorney General

So, Mr. Olens, we’re kinda, sorta puzzled about what it is you think your role is as Attorney General of Georgia, and how you actually promulgate your duties in real life:

1) You bring forth new legislation that causes news organizations up and down this state to swoon and coo all over your “baby” that you conceived called HB 397.

2) You introduce more stringent (presumably) requirements for Open Records Act requests for information from state, county, and local government agencies (“agencies” will be used interchangeably in this discussion with “entities”), and you provide new penalties for failure of any government employee who violates the performance of answering a Request.

3) You introduce more stringent requirements for what constitutes how “Open Meetings” are to be conducted, and what government officials can and cannot do…also providing new penalties for violations.

4) You have reduced the cost of paper copies from $0.25 per page to $0.10 per page…even though in this world today, a LOT of agencies actually have the ability to directly scan documents into a PDF document a lot quicker than actually printing-out documents and mailing them…but, again, we’re not going to quibble over this bit of illogic.

5), 6), 7)….and whatever other new things you have in the bill.

BUT…here is the really, really, really strange part of this whole charade of yours to promote “open government” in Georgia:

IF someone filed an open records request on any state agency (i.e., executive branch of Georgia government), and if they were to uncover either a violation of some civil law in Georgia, or perhaps even a violation of a criminal statute in Georgia by anyone in that state agency (or, in the case of the Board of Regents’ issue, where there are multiple violations of malfeasance alleged by many individuals…with documented proof from the Plaintiff), you, as Attorney General of Georgia, would immediately act to seize the proof of the violations of laws, seal-off the evidence and take-on the role of taxpayer-paid-for defense attorney for the offending person, persons, or entire organization.

And, of course, in addition to the violation of Georgia laws that were uncovered through the course of this hypothetical open records request, there might also be violations of federal law uncovered as well (since the Board of Regents receives earmarked-funding from the feds that passes through the State of Georgia Revenue). But, because of the role you see yourself, you would take action to protect your client (the state agency) from any kind of criminal or civil investigation, and bury that evidence as deeply as possible.

So, you kinda play several roles in the case of malfeasance by anyone in any executive-branch state agency: Defense Attorney, evidence lockup guy, magistrate judge, and basically, Chief Cover-Up Officer of Malfeasance by state employees and publicly elected officials of state agencies.

Anything we miss here?

And…just to carry out this line of thinking a little further…you’re hoping you might serve in the Justice Department of a President Mitt Romney? Perhaps you even have Eric Holder’s job in mind, eh?

Based on your current actions to date as Chief Cover-Up Officer of the Board of Regents/Defense Attorney for the potential abuse and misuse of millions of Georgia taxpayer dollars, could you take a moment and kindly explain to us in Georgia and America how what you do in Georgia right now with regards to the Board of Regents’ case would translate to the kind of person Republicans would like to see replace Eric Holder as Attorney General of the U.S.? From our standpoint, when it comes to cover-up of what the executive branch of a government is doing, it actually does not appear there would be much of a change in results if you were switched-out with Eric Holder…?

Take all the time you want, Sir. Really.

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Sam Olens, Attorney General

Sir, you are familiar with the Georgia Constitution, correct? The one you swore an oath to uphold when you became a licensed attorney in Georgia?

Specifically, we’d like to point you to this section: Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph X states the following:

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law [emphasis added], or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed.”

So, if we release information now about the case you just happen to be the defense attorney of right this moment defending the Georgia Board of Regents in a whistleblower lawsuit, you will not be able to insert a clause in HB 397 that forbids us from discussing and releasing the following information.

For everyone else’s knowledge who is reading this Memo to you, Mr. Olens, the whistleblower lawsuit accuses Regent members of all kinds of different malfeasances, not the least of which is the fact that when (for example) an employee at any of the 35 Georgia university or colleges of higher education is terminated from employment (or a student is expelled), the Regents advertises they have an “appeals process” in place that supposedly allows the terminated employee an opportunity to spend ALL their time writing-out details of their situation and why they feel their termination/expulsion was in error. This document is called an “Application for Review.”

Except, according to the whistleblower lawsuit, these appeals are never actually seen or reviewed personally by the members of the Board of Regents Organization and Law Committee.

So, the terminated employee is left with 1) no job, 2) no hope for a true appeal, and 3) a whole lot of personal time spent writing an appeal (all the while telling themselves there’s a chance SOMEONE at the Regents will read it and see their issue and they will have their job back/get readmitted to school) when, in fact, the Regents are too busy discussing such weighty issues like whether or not Charmin toilet paper is softer on their rear-ends than Scott toilet paper.

According to information transmitted to Political Vine via email, there was testimony given that is part of Open Records right now, and it contains the following excerpt regarding the sworn testimony of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint dated February 8, 2010, Page 11:

Q: “Is there a review of any documents or evidence by the Board of Regents?
A: “Do you mean physical documents?
Q: “Yes, Ma’am.
A: “No.”
Q: “Do the Regents review the applications for review that are submitted by the employees?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Why not?”
A: “I think just like I said time restraints.

So, from what we understand (again, Mr. Olens, we’re just catching you and others up on the case information as it has been relayed to us), you and the whistleblower are locked into a battle in Fulton County Superior Court concerning a case YOU supposedly won (on behalf of your client, The Board of Regents) over the matter of the release of court documents such as this testimony by this Regent.

So, let’s see if PV understands this reality with HB 397: On the one hand, you appear to be opening up the ‘closed doors of state, county, and local governments’ all over Georgia…while at the same time seeking to block access to information that directly points to a Georgia-based legal entity (Board of Regents) via repeated court motions against a pro se attorney (yeah, you make sure you strut around like you’re the baddest AG in America with that accomplishment)…and this information points directly to what appears to be, or what may actually be, extensive corruption in the Board of Regents.

Is this about right?

Well, as we said at the very, very beginning…the General Assembly cannot pass a retroactive law. So, we are therefore publishing this information NOW and linking to the documents below NOW in advance of the likely passage of this legislation that you have, apparently, either misled legislators on…or, they may be, for all we know, just as corrupt-minded as you are to be interested in ensuring that evidence regarding potential corruption and misuse of taxpayer dollars totaling in the multi-millions of dollars never sees the light of day in Georgia.

Multiple Conflicts of Interest Between AG Olens, His Oath of Office & Board of Regents

Denial of Motion Filed In Fulton County Superior Court

Mr. Olens, we submit this Memo to you dated March 21, 2012.
===============================================================================
PV Note: Information contained in this Memo was obtained through contact with Denise Caldon, the person responsible for filing the whistleblower lawsuit against the Georgia Board of Regents. If you wish to find out more info about her case, feel free to contact here at:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/denise-caldon/26/624/949

The Meat and Potatoes of SB 448

In order to best explain what this legislation is designed to accomplish, let’s take a hypothetical case study: Let’s say, hypothetically, that there was a guy named Masun Wain Williams and, back in 2005, he owned a land development company called Swampland Development LLC (“SDL”).

Williams spotted a prime piece of swampland in some county somewhere for $5,000,000, and he dreamed of a vision of multi-family housing being built on this swampland. Williams checked his pockets and discovered he did not have $5 million.

He decided to go visit his local banker, Joe Bob-The Banker. Williams told Joe-Bob “I want to buy this land for $5,000,000. Can you help me out with a loan?”

Banker Joe-Bob responded with “Well…sure. But, since SDL has no other assets except for this land you wish to buy, my lending rules require me to require you to give us a personal guarantee that even if your ‘wonderful, can’t-miss land development idea’ goes south, you will personally guarantee a repayment of this loan.”

Williams responded with “Sure thing! You know me, Joe-Bob. I always pay my debts, and you know I’m good for this loan. Where do I sign?”

And, so, back in 2005 (in this hypothetical case), a loan for the land deal was granted Williams for him to purchase the $5 million piece of land.

So, at the conclusion of the transaction, the following occurred:

1) Mr. Williams had $5 million in cash
2) Joe-Bob Banker had a loan note (call it the “Note”) with Williams’ personal guarantee that even if the slimmest of possibilities happened with the new mutli-family development going the proverbial “south,” the bank would get its money back (with interest of course) from Williams.

Now, over the course of time, the market for development did, in fact, go “south”…and the apartment complex was never fully built.

Also in the course of time, Joe-Bob’s Bank flipped the Note to some other entity wholly separate from Joe-Bob’s Bank; call this new entity “High Risk Taker”…or, “HRT.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Attorney General Sam Olens responded to our “Part 1″ Alert with the following emailed response:

“New sections f, g and h were predominantly written by counsel for the AJC and Georgia Press Association to make computer records more accessible to the public. Fire your researcher.”

PV Responds: The Research Team of Political Vine examined the “new and improved” language AG Olens refers to in his emailed response prior to issuing Alert #1, and discovered that (regardless of who did or did not write it) it does not cover by specific language (which is how a LOT of Georgia law is interpreted by government attorneys up and down this state on the subject of open records requests) all aspects of electronic delivery.

The new Section (f) reads as the following: “As provided in this subsection, an agency’s use of electronic record-keeping systems must not erode the public’s right of access to records under this article. Agencies shall produce electronic copies of or, if the requester prefers, printouts of electronic records or data from data base fields that the agency maintains using the computer programs that the agency has in its possession. An agency shall not refuse to produce such electronic records, data, or data fields on the grounds that exporting data or redaction of exempted information will require inputting range, search, filter, report parameters, or similar commands or instructions into an agency’s computer system so long as such commands or instructions can be executed using existing computer programs that the agency uses in the ordinary course of business to access, support, or otherwise manage the records or data. A requester may request that electronic records, data, or data fields be produced in the format in which such data or electronic records are kept by the agency, or in a standard export format such as a flat file electronic American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format, if the agency’s existing computer programs support such an export format. In such instance, the data or electronic records shall be downloaded in such format onto suitable electronic media by the agency. No public officer or agency shall be required to prepare new reports, summaries, or compilations not in existence at the time of the request.”

PV’s Comment on the New Section (f): It does not state “how” the information is to be delivered. It only provides that the records being maintained by an agency in electronic format “shall be provided.”

As far as this new section (f) is concerned, an agency is required to extract the data, but they could choose to require that the information be placed on a disk, money charged for that disk, and money charged for mailing that disk and/or requiring anyone to come in and physically sign for the disk…and that would be in accordance with the specific wording of the law…when it may be easier (and much less expensive) to provide the data via emailed attachment.

The original law stated it this way: “…records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access.“

There is a specific meaning to the phrase “shall be made available” that is not present in any language of the new Section (f).

The new Section (g) states the following: “Requests to inspect or copy electronic messages, whether in the form of e-mail, text message, or other format, should contain information about the messages that is reasonably calculated to allow the recipient of the request to locate the messages sought, including, if known, the name, title, or office of the specific person or persons whose electronic messages are sought and, to the extent possible, the specific data bases to be searched for such messages.”

PV’s Response to Section (g): Again, this covers nothing regarding a specific requirement for how the information requested is to be delivered.

The new Section (h) states the following: “In lieu of providing separate printouts or copies of records or data, an agency may provide access to records through a website accessible by the public. However, if an agency receives a request for data fields, an agency shall not refuse to provide the responsive data on the grounds that the data is available in whole or in its constituent parts through a website if the requester seeks the data in the electronic format in which it is kept. Additionally, if an agency contracts with a private vendor to collect or maintain public records, the agency shall ensure that the arrangement does not limit public access to those records.”

PV’s Response to the new Section (h): The language specifies that “an agency may [emphasis added by PV] provide access to records through a website accessible by the public…”

Ladies & Gentlemen, a “website” is not the same element in the world of the Internet as an “email communication” is.

There is no language specific to addressing the concept of email delivery of information, nor is there specificity on the “shall” aspect of requiring an agency to provide the data via the web or Internet where practicable.

If Senators Hamrick, Cowsert, Crosby, McKoon, Stone, Bethel, Fort, Carter (or anyone else) on the Senate committee reviewing this law wishes to make this law as equal or better to what it once was, you would do the following:

Change #1) Strike the word “may” anywhere it appears and replace it with the word “shall.” Any lawyer will tell you that there is a legal distinction in interpretation of the word “shall” compared to the word “may.” (Any lawyer denying this fact may need their bar license reviewed.)

Change #2) Insert the language of the former Section (g) back into this bill: “…records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access, subject to reasonable security restrictions preventing access to nonrequested or nonavailable records.”

Because, again, “Internet access” covers both “web-based access” and “emailed access” while “web-based” only covers a Website. From experience, PV knows that lawyers for government agencies always look for any way in which to deny access to public records.

No one should have any problem with the aforementioned language revision.

PV Note To AG Olens: Sir, you stated in your response that this new language was “predominantly” written by counsel for the AJC and the Georgia Press Association. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your office now has an opportunity to re-examine the language of HB 397, and make these two corrections that need to be made.

And, even if counsel for the Press Association were to fight it, you know we’re right, and for the people of Georgia, you should act on that basis because everyone knows there is a difference between “shall” and “may,” and that there is a difference between “Internet access” and “Web-based access.” Even if you were not conscious of the issues with this specific language before, now you have an opportunity to correct this in the law before it is considered by the Senate.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter of utmost importance.

Rumors have it that while Attorney General Sam Olens and State Representative Jay Powell have been touting HB 397 as “The Sunshine Bill” designed to provide more “transparency” to state, county and local governments, in fact, it is making it more challenging to access information by way of throwing-up financial barriers to make it more expensive to obtain information under Open Records Act laws for no other reason than to make it more expensive for ordinary citizens to uncover corruption in their government.

PV Provides The Evidence: For YEARS, the Open Records Act allowed for the access to information “maintained by computer” by any agency to be delivered via the Internet where practical. In fact, this is how the law currently reads under OCGA Section 50-18-70(g):

“At the request of the person, firm, corporation, or other entity requesting such records, records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access, subject to reasonable security restrictions preventing access to nonrequested or nonavailable records.”

In the most recent version of HB 397, this entire section is crossed-out, thereby meaning that agencies (e.g., Cobb County Government…the entity AG Olens is a former county commission chairman of) no longer have to forward emails sent by anyone in the agency…and that, instead, each email would have to be printed-out and a copy purchased for $0.10 per copy.

(AND…by the way, it was in the original version of the bill as well, so nobody better claim “Oh, it must have been struck by the other guy…we’re not responsible for that”)

If this bill passes as is, it will seriously impede all efforts by citizens, bloggers, news media, or whoever to obtain by electronic means records that are ALREADY in electronic format and able to be transmitted over the Internet.

Furthermore…there’s also this new addition to the law which makes the retrieval of emails written by government officials, employees, or whoever in a Georgia government state, local, or county agency much more difficult to uncover corruption and illegal acts by government officials:

“OCGA 50-18-71(g): “Requests to inspect or copy electronic messages, whether in the form of e-mail, text message, or other format, should contain information about the messages that is reasonably calculated to allow the recipient of the request to locate the messages sought, including, if known, the name, title, or office of the specific person or persons whose electronic messages are sought and, to the extent possible, the specific data bases to be searched for such messages.”

You see, right now, people have to pay money for the search and retrieval time and any other research time spent by an agency for any time greater than 15 minutes.

So, since the onus already exists on the person making the request to pay money for the search and retrieval time, there should be no problem with any government entity in Georgia dealing with a blanket request for, as an example, “all emails between Faye DiMassimo and anyone at Brock & Clay Public Affairs” without the requestor having to specify by “reasonable calculation” (whatever the heck THAT means…go try arguing with an attorney on what the definition of “reasonable” is as he/she is charging you for the time to argue…) the names of the people at Brock & Clay PA the requestor is interested in seeing the email traffic from.

PV Is Disgusted: The only…Only…ONLY reason to strike-out the “deliverable by Internet” part of the law is to deliberately block someone from accessing information without them having to expend a lot more time and money to have to actually travel to a government agency and obtain copies of the information.

AND…the striking of this section actually dovetails quite nicely with the rumor PV heard regarding AG Olens making frequent trips to the Cobb County Commission to mentor Tim Lee, and listen to Tim Lee’s problems with all the open records requests being filed by the many Cobb community activists (one being PV, by the way) who are intent on uncovering the corruption that has long been embedded in Cobb County Government.

The deliberate striking of the section of the ORA concerning delivery of computerized records by Internet is a blatant attempt to send Georgia back to the Stone Age for access to “openness” and “transparency” in our government.

While the AJC is busy gives kudos and backslaps to Powell and Olens, PV sees a different intent altogether with this bill: Bait-and-Switch of what the definition of “Sunshine” should really entail.

There is not one corrupt-free reason that Section 50-18-70(g) should have been struck from the law. Everyone has a computer these days…all governments do as well, and to strike this requirement demonstrates someone had forethought and deliberate intent to make it a whole LOT more challenging for people to access public information from their governments. The only question remains is WHO that person was?

There will be more Alerts issued this week as PV wades through this bill and wonders what other land mines lie in wait for our so-called “open and transparency-based government in this state.” Stay tuned.

ATLANTA, Ga. (March 9, 2012) — Fox Business Network host and commentator John Stossel will be the keynote speaker at a special April 12 dinner celebrating the upcoming relocation of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) to Atlanta this fall.

The dinner, entitled An Evening with FEE, will take place April 12 at 7:00pm at the Atlanta Renaissance Waverly Hotel (Galleria). FEE is one of the oldest free-market organizations in the country, reaching more than 15,000 students a year through week-long seminars and other events.

At the dinner, Stossel will deliver a positive, inspiring message about school choice and privatization, and his new book – No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails, But Individuals Succeed – will be available for purchase. Stossel is long-time friend of FEE and a frequent contributor to The Freeman magazine, FEE’s signature publication since 1956.

Event tickets can be purchased online; $125 a person, $200 a couple and $1,000 for a table of eight. For details visit http://www.fee.org/stossel.

About the Foundation for Economic Education

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) inspires, educates and connects students with the ‘first principles’ of freedom by exploring the economics of free enterprise and a limited government. Founded in 1946, FEE is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation and accepts no taxpayer money. FEE is supported solely by contributions from private individuals, foundations, and businesses and by the sales of its publications. For more on FEE, please visit www.fee.org

Interviews and speaking requests may be arranged by contacting Margaret Poteet at (404) 419-1303 or at mpoteet@fee.org.

260 Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 419-1303

What is the difference between a Republican who is in favor of TSPLOST and a Communist? The Communist will admit he’s a Communist; the Republican who supports T-SPLOST won’t.