Water District writes check for FOIA violation –

10 Responses

1. Out of curiosity, I would like to ask how many people on the CERWD Board, actually live where they have to access their water through the CERWD? And if their signed contracts are exactly the same as the majority of the current customers? I personally would like to purchase 2-3 acres somewhere in the country but I sure DON’T want to have to deal with this business. I feel the contracts aren’t fair to the people of these 2 counties. You should be able to shut your water off & on after you’ve paid for the hook up fee’s and used the water for a few years, without having to pay for every month you had it shut off. It’s just another “unattractive thing” that keeps people from wanting to live here. Keep up the good work jmkraft!

2. As a taxpayer and voter, I want to know where my tax dollars are going. I also want to know what my elected officials are doing. You can only FOIA public documents; therefore, it is the fault of the officials when they choose not to allow the public access to information we have a right to know.

3. please can you foi those thousands in attorney fees
   so we can see for ourselves
   You already seem to know the money amount show us the documents

   1. No. But you can anytime you want to.

4. More fees thrown on the tax payers. You blame the officials, yet the tax payers are the ones being punished over and over again. You claim to be teaching these officials a lesson, why do we have to pay for the lesson? We aren’t involved any other way than through our wallets. How about making the city officials or the the watchdogs pick up the tab for a change? I bet the watchdogs have cost the counties thousands of dollars by looking at this.
   All I see here is the watchdogs and city officials playing their little games and the taxpayers pick up the tab for all the nonsense. I guarantee if the parties involved had to pick up the tab for this, it wouldn’t be happening.

   1. Obviously you think it’s OK that public officials hide public records and use public money to delay production of public records.
      The law is clear on what they have to produce, when they have to produce it, and how much they can charge. This public body failed to follow the law and spent thousands trying to defend themselves. Now, if the AG would have simply made a determination back in 2012 when they should have, they public body wouldn’t have spent near as much in the continued back-and-forth communications between them and the AG.

      1. Don’t try to twist what my complaint is. What you do is akin to taxation without representation. We get to foot the bill for the various(and numerous)actions you initiate at these different public bodies, yet we have absolutely no say in whether you spend our money or not. You operate in the exact fashion as the very officials you say are wronging us. We get to finance your “beefs” with public bodies. Period.

         1. I follow the law and request public records when I need to. If a public body followed the law, and simply produced what they were required to produce – without consulting an attorney, then the “bill” would be substantially less, or nothing at all.
            The attorney for this public body told them, back in 2012, that it is their primary duty to provide public records on request (and the Legislature agrees with that statement), as much of a duty as providing water to customers. I would be happy to upload the audio of that comment if you want to hear it…
            From the tone of your comments, you sound like someone that thinks nobody needs to look at anything.

5. They will make up for it by raising tap fees, so its all good.

6. Its easy to spend other peoples money