|
You may have received a previous copy of
this message. Please forgive us. We’re having
trouble with our e-mail. We expect to have it fixed today. Friends: We just released the following notice to the press. Al
-----Original Message----- TO THE PRESS: Yesterday we sent you a word document and a note alerting
you to the fact that Later, we received the following e-mail from the county. Today, we are informed, in an article published in the
Daily Camera that There are at least four BIG stories here: 1. 2. Since October 2nd this year, http://coloradovoter.blogspot.com/2005/10/boulder-county-refuses-open-records.html
As you can see, the county is saying that they will not provide the data
in time to use it for the current election. This stinks. 3. The problem with mail ballots is not unique to 4. When offered the opportunity to conduct elections
by mandatory mail ballot, 60 percent of Election officials have assumed the role of masters rather
than the role of public servants. This must be corrected
immediately. Check this out, and please inform your readers what is
going on. Al Al Kolwicz 303-494-1540 www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz
http://ColoradoVoter.blogspot.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bailey, Shelley [mailto:sbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:51 PM To: alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Liss, Josh Subject: Mr. Al Kolwicz CAMBER Original via e-mail I am in receipt of your letter dated October 20 in which you
made serious accusations regarding the County's intentions with regard to our
response to your October 6, 2005 Open Records Request, and allegations that the
response was inadequate. I am now in the process of reviewing your October 20
letter with respect to your reiteration and clarification of your October 6
Open Records Request. After my review of those items, I will
respond as follows: 1) To the extent your October 20 letter provides
clarification or information that allows me to release additional documents to
you, I will inform you of the situation and schedule a time for you to inspect
the documentation; and 2) To the extent my answer to any given item remains the
same, I will state that fact. In addition to discussions about your October 6, Open
Records request, you also made new Open Records requests in your October 20
letter. Our office will not be able to respond to the new requests until after
the election. The Clerk has adopted a rule that allows her office, under
certain circumstances to delay responding to Open Records Requests. (Please let
me know if you would like me to fax this document to you, in which case I will
need a fax number, or if you would like for me to mail it to you.) The
authority for adopting this rule is as follows: 1) C.R.S. § 24-72-203(1)(a) states, "All public
records shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, ... but
the official custodian of any public records may make such rules with reference
to the inspection of such records as are reasonably necessary for the
protection of such records and the prevention of unnecessary interference with
the regular discharge of the duties of the custodian or the custodian's
office." Due to the fast approaching election day and the fact that
the Clerk's office is devoting all of its resources to meet this impending
deadline, the Clerk has determined that it is reasonably necessary for the
prevention of unnecessary interference with the regular discharge of the duties
of the Clerk's office to delay responding to any Open Records requests (which
meet the defined criteria) from October 17, 2005, until after the
election. See also, Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Southwestern
Water Conservation Dist., App.2004, 97 P.3d 308. ( 2. Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-203(3)(b)(III) a custodian may
have additional time to respond to an Open Records Request when " [a]
request involves such a large volume of records that the custodian cannot
reasonably prepare or gather the records within the three day period without
substantially interfering with the custodian's obligations to perform his or
her other public service responsibilities" or, if, "[a] broadly
stated request is made that encompass all or substantially all of a large
category of records and the agency is unable to prepare or gather the records .
. . because (A) The agency needs to devote all or substantially all of
its resources to meeting an impending deadline or period of peak demand that is
either unique or not predicted to recur more frequently than once a
month." C.R.S. 24-72-203(3)(b) 3. Finally, Citizens Progressive Alliance v.
Southwestern Water Conservation Dist., App.2004, 97 P.3d 308 (Colo. App 2004)t,
allows for situations under which an agency may not be able to respond within
the additional seven day extension provided by statute. "A records
custodian cannot be sanctioned for failure to comply with the time limits in
24-72-203(3)(b) in situations where . . . compliance with a request within
those time limits is a physical impossibility." In this case, the
Clerk's office is devoting its entire staff to fulfilling its statutory
obligations to meet the requirements of the upcoming election. Your
additional requests involve voluminous documents and it is not possible for the
Clerk's office to fulfill your request and continue to perform its statutorily
mandated duties for the upcoming election. Therefore, as stated above, I will respond to your October
20 letter regarding your previous requests as soon as possible. With
regard to your additional requests, pursuant to the Clerk's rule, the Clerk's
office will respond to your requests within 20 days after the election.
However, I will also make every effort to provide a response to you sooner than
the above stated deadlines, if at all possible. In order to respond to
your additional requests, as set forth herein, I will need your request on the
County's official Open Records Request Form. That document has been sent
to you previously on several occasions. If you would like another copy
sent to you, please let me know by e-mail response. Sincerely, Shelley Stratton Bailey Assistant |