Cochise County, Public Records request, County response

APPENDIX I:  MY JANUARY 27, 2014, REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

My request was
.  for me to inspect, and copy or be allowed to copy:
.  - all communications, written or electronic, and all memoranda or notes of the communications described herein, including material kept not only in offices or on office computers, but at any location and on home or portable computers, tablets, and telephones; and including standard emails, and other means of electronic communications including but not limited to "tweets";
.  - and made from December 1, 2013, through today, January 27, 2014, and on a continuing basis hereafter; and
.  - between County Supervisor Pat Call and any Planning Department employee, including but not limited to Beverly Wilson, Mike Turisk, and Keith Dennis;
.  - or between Supervisor Call and any Planning & Zoning Commissioner;
.  - or between Commissioner Weissler and any Planning Department
employee, or any other Commissioner, or her husband Robert Weissler;
.  - or between Commissioner Weissler and deputy county attorney Adam Ambrose concerning the list that Weissler discusses in the email already produced and copied at .
.     http://littlebigdog.net/PNZWaterEmail1.jpg
concerning the "order of the motions on the water regs," to quote her email.  In anticipation of the County Attorney's assertion of
attorney-client privilege for a communication with his employees,
please note that no attorney-client privilege can exist with respect to this list because it was advice about a political procedure, not a legal matter, and because any hypothetical privilege was waived by Weissler's discussion in this email;
.  - or between Commissioner Weissler and any employee of the County Attorney, so far as the communication includes matters
other than legal advice.

APPENDIX II:  HANSON'S MARCH 19 RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST [with a few notes by me, MPJ]

Your public records request dated January 27, 2014 raises a number of issues which need to be addressed, as follows:

1.  We are denying your request for communications between Commissioner Weissler and her husband.  These are confidential and private, except and unless any such communications are conducted as official County business.

[MPJ-1:  The above is the part of Hanson's email where he fails to acknowledge his power to redact personal information, and his duty to transmit the rest.]

2.  You have requested all communications between Supervisor Call and "any Planning Department employee, including but not limited to Beverly Wilson, Mike Turisk, and Keith Dennis."  Public Records Coordinator Lemons requested Ms. Wilson, Mr. Turisk and Mr. Dennis to provide all such communications with Supervisor Call.  Ms. Lemons also asked Supervisor Call for all communications that fall within your request.  However, she did not ask all Planning Department employees to conduct a search for communications with Supervisor Call, nor will she be doing so.  The Planning Department has numerous employees; requesting all of them to stop work in order to conduct such a search is not reasonable.  This is especially so in light of the fact that your request is an ongoing request, which not only would require numerous employees to periodically cease work to search, but also would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on Ms. Lemons to continually track the individual searches by all of these employees.  Supervisor Call's search for "all Planning Department employees", which turned up no documents, will suffice.

[MPJ-2:  Hanson is thumping his chest over nothing.  Every communication has two parts, a sender and a receiver.  It's Call's duty to keep copies of everything he sends or receives that involves public business.  If Call has done his duty, he can search search his own records to find documents.  There's no work for other County employees.]

3.  The same response applies to your request for all communications between Commissioner Weissler and "any Planning Department employee."  Ms. Lemons has checked with Ms. Weissler for such communications and will continue to do so periodically, but will not be asking all Planning Department employees to do so.  The same response applies to your request for all communications between Commissioner Weissler and other Planning Commissioners.  The same response applies to your request for all communications between Supervisor Call and all Commissioners.

[MPJ-3:  More needless chest-thumping, as noted in MPJ-2 above -- although it's interesting that Hanson implies that there are communications between Weissler and other Commissioners which he won't produce.]

4.  You have made the above referenced requests, and others specified in your email, on "a continuing basis hereafter".  The County will comply with this request.  However, you should be aware that continuing requests do not last in perpetuity.  If, during any continuous three month period, no documents fit the continuing request, thereafter the County will presumptively no longer honor the continuing request; but, if documents have fit the continuing request, the County will presumptively continue to honor the continuing request for another three months.  If continuing requests accumulate to the point that the administrative burden becomes too time-consuming and expensive, we will review whether to continue honoring continuing requests.

[MPJ-4A:  It seems reasonable for the County to "sunset" old requests unless they are renewed, as long as the County tells the requestor that has been done; but as far as I know, a state court has not ruled on the legality of that procedure yet.]

[MPJ-4B:  It looks like Hanson is trying to pick a fight about costs, but his comments imply that NO request has so far been so time-consuming or expensive as to be burdensome, so he seems to be picking a fight over nothing.  He should abide by the statute in force.]