Cirtin/Chiles E-mail Exchange Update
9 05 2008In a follow up to the previous blog concerning Brenda Cirtin, e-mails to Councilman Dan Chiles and media reports I contacted the city’s Public Information Office regarding the identity of the mystery person who made the initial request for the e-mails of Councilman Dan Chiles. This is what I received from the PIO:
The citizen initiated this request for information via a phone call to the Clerk’s Office and Brenda took her usual step of asking the source of the information, in this case Councilman Chiles, to respond to the request. The citizen called back to the Clerk’s Office about three times within a week’s
time of the initial request to check on its progress. When the information had not been provided, the citizen declined to pursue a formal Sunshine request. Brenda told Mr. Chiles the matter was dropped.
Now, obviously, that does not identify the citizen and I’m guessing here that under state law because it was not a formal request there’s no legal obligation for Ms. Cirtin to release the name of that person. I can understand this because what if the caller was a reporter working on a story? Why should she be required to tell the other media outlets in town what a reporter for a competiting station is working on as an exclusive? So there’s a good precedent for not revealing the name of this person.
Had they made a formal request, it would have been public record and Ms. Cirtin would have no choice but to release the name. As is, I really don’t have a problem with her keeping that citizen’s name confidential as the citizen wanted by withdrawing their request.
Now, completely without Ms. Cirtin’s knowledge, I have done some more digging and while I cannot reveal the identity (yet) of the person who made the request I have a source who has confirmed to me that the person making the request was NOT a member of the Springfield City Council, their spouses, their immediate family or city staff. I know there were some in the community who were questioning if this was an attempt by city staff or city council to intimidate Mr. Chiles and that is not the case. Now, the citizen in question may have been trying to do it but it is not someone within the city government.
I’ve also been able to discover that it is not someone connected to the Missouri Liberty Coalition or other groups that have been loud advocates of change within city government and sometimes insinuators of corruption among the city government. So this is not some witch hunt on the part of city critics, either.
I know I’ve said a lot of who it’s not but I thought it was important to see if it was one of those two groups before we started digging any further. At this point, it just seems like a citizen interested in the process who’s not seeking media attention nor attempting to intimidate Councilman Chiles. However, if we find the person, we’re sure going to ask them why they wanted those e-mails.
“insinuators of corruption”
As has been proven already with the audit and the mismanagement of city funds which should have been paid into the pension fund, I believe the direct quote above is a ill fated attempt at making people who are truly concerned with how government operates, sound a bit contrite and to belittle them for their work behind the scenes.
A witch hunt went out with the Salem, MA burning at the stake days.
People who are concerned with how government operates and spends the tax revenue it receives are quite patriotic and should be commended by everyone as they LOOK out for the BEST interest of how tax dollars are funneled through the system. The insinuation that they are anything but shows some real character flaws. I don’t hear any of these groups begging government to keep funneling them money so they can continue to operate, NO these groups do so on there OWN dollars and use the resources of which they do have quite wisely in there investigative areas of how government can become more efficient.
As for Dan Chiles and his involvement in the square renovation, to think that he alone could instigate the means by which some of these federal groups are now researching the money being allocated to our square, makes me laugh so hard that my ribs hurt. Anytime money is being allocated from the federal trough to reconstruct anything there is a federal watchdog group ready to pounce on the item to see if it is a political payback or something that is drastically needed to improve existing infrastructure. In the case of the square I believe several flags went flying especially since our elected city leaders and those not elected but drawing a salary(supposedly to represent our best interest) tied the redevelopment of the Heers Tower into the square redevelopment. This smacks of a political payback and should be investigated and should have even been questioned before the deal was sign, sealed, and delivered.
Just my take, however the person who asked for the e-mail exchange is within their right to do so IF Mr. Chiles tried to use his position as a means to prevent or prohibit this redevelopment or if he used ‘like’ to try to promote this redevelopment
Tom, I’m really tired of the crying from people if someone dares to say there are people within the city who are insinuating corruption in the government. It’s going on whether you like it or not and to continually play the “we’re just being citizens” card really gets old after a while. You might not be doing it but it doesn’t mean it’s not going on. If that description doesn’t fit you at all then there’s no reason for you to be so defensive.
The majority of citizens don’t believe there is mass corruption at city hall and they’re tired of hearing the sky is falling every time people question those who seem to think there’s a sinister plot behind every city decision. A good and active group of citizens watching the government is vital for the accountability of our government but someone that only thinks the fix is in on everything does nothing but feed the people they’re critical of when they say that it’s just something made by up by radicals.
The majority of people do believe there is a better way than what we’ve had up to this point. That doesn’t mean the people in place are corrupt. Perhaps there are just better people to get the job done.
I have never proclaimed that there was corruption, nor have I accused anyone of such. I simply pointed out the funding shortfall occurred at such time as
“other ” not needed projects were being built. This isn’t insinuating corruption this is very evident as part of the budget.
I’m very apologetic that you think someone is corrupt in government, perhaps you should research this as another worthy piece of writing.
If we thought someone was corrupt we would have already pursued legal proceedings to bring justice to an injustice, but when it comes to government spending PROVING corruption is quite difficult.
I’m not saying you did, Tom. Never did, actually. However, I’ve seen letters in the local press and heard calls on local talk shows making those claims.
I’m just tired of every time someone holds the critics critically it suddenly becomes about how they’re being picked on instead of someone exercising the same rights the critics are exercising. It’s not “us vs. them.” It’s just “us.”
Then were in agreement, but I try not to label anyone. If someone thinks they have the proof of corruption I welcome them to go through the legal process to prove such.
However I will say I’ve seen some mighty strange stuff become very true so until such time as it is disproved I’m open minded enough to look at information no matter who it comes from.