Press Release
Mat-Su Borough Receives Final Warning for Denial of Public Access to Documents
• Wasilla, August 22, 2005: The Mat-Su Borough today received a final warning it was in violation of its own laws regarding access to public documents. (Attached) (See Below)
• In accordance with MSB 1.50.050(A)(1), the Mat-Su borough is required to provide access in person to all public documents not protected by attorney/client privilege at no cost.
• The borough first threatened to charge $5000 dollars to hire an outside contractor despite having internal computer experts, then completely denied access after an offer to provide an independent information technology expert was provided.
• The routine information requested is a series of e-mail’s to and from various borough staff members and Mayor Tim Anderson regarding his intention to veto an ordinance for gravel sales at the borough dock.
• Other public information sought includes correspondence from assemblyman Colver to and from various department heads regarding Mr Colver’s business activities with the borough. Members of the public had voiced concern with apparent “cherry picking” of borough contracts, giving the appearance that Mr Colver is using his assembly position for personal gain.
• Stonewalling, excessive charges and outright denial of public records requests have increased during the last four years, as the Anderson/Duffy/Colver administration has received greatly increased public scrutiny as taxes and spending have skyrocketed, and multiple successful legal challenges to borough laws mounted.###
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia Ave.
Palmer, AK 99645
Subject: Notice of Borough Code Violation August 15, 2005
Dear Mr. Duffy,
This is notice that you and the Matanuska Susitna Borough are in violation of MSB 1.50.050(A)(1) and A.S. 40.25.110 regarding access to public records. You are required by local, state and federal law to provide access to the requested public documents, and you have specifically denied the public access to records clearly permitted by law.
Your inability to segregate privileged or attorney/client information is insufficient reason to deny access in person and is indicative of intentional disregard for Borough Code, as well as state and federal law. A simple folder for privileged information in the e-mail folders of borough staff members is all that is required to segregate protected data. This simple procedure can be implemented by administrative directive within your management purview and should be implemented immediately.
You may be subject to criminal prosecution under the “Concealment” provisions of United States Code Title 18, Section 2071. If you persist in concealing public documents, I will take action under local, state and federal law to ensure the public is allowed access to public documents.
Please reconsider your denial of access to public records and allow the public to access public records in person in accordance with MSB 1.50.050(A)(1).
Sincerely,
Penny R. Nixon
Public Records Petitioner
Cc: Tom Blackley, IT Manager
Ken Jacobus, Attorney