Chief clerk denies ever having documents
On Thursday, Oct. 1, a guest column written by Fayette County Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink was published in which she claimed that the county chief clerk’s office has documents that were requested under a Right to Know request and failed to provide them. I assume the purpose of the letter was to clarify a news article that ran two days prior. I am writing this to address the assertion that as the Right to Know officer, I am keeping documents from the public. That claim is nothing short of ludicrous.
To be clear, since I was hired as chief clerk and subsequently named the Right to Know officer on May 14, 2012, I have processed hundreds of RTK requests. My goal as RTK officer is to process the requests and provide all the public information I can. During the course of that part of my job, I often have to rely on other department heads and elected officials to provide me what I am asking for. The documents that Jim Killinger requested are not and have never been in my possession and to say they are is simply not true. Commissioner Zimmerlink claimed in her letter that she provided me a letter of interest dated Nov. 6, 2014, in November 2014 and again last week. Part of that is true, I first received it on the afternoon of Monday, September 21, 2015. It was never given to me before that. Actually, the week before, two employees of the Controller’s office came down to look at my files and asked if I had a copy of that letter. I did not have it and therefore could not provide it to them. If they wrote the letter, as Commissioner Zimmerlink stated, they should have had it and not asked me for it.
Commissioner Zimmerlink wants to muddy the waters by claiming that meeting minutes, resolutions, financial documents and RFQ documents are available. I believe this is a deliberate effort to deflect from the issue at hand. The items that she claims I have, I do, but those are not the documents Mr. Killinger requested. He wasn’t asking for any financial documents, he didn’t want meeting minutes and he surely didn’t want the RFQ documents from the first jail project in which he was involved. He asked for “copies of the criteria used to score each firm based on their qualifications and price” and “copies of the final criteria used to select Astorino.” Neither of which were in my possession or control so I could not provide them. Mr. Killinger simply wants to know how Commissioners Zimmerlink and Vincent Zapotosky selected Astorino. A valid question since the firm finished fourth out of four when the first RFQ was done.
Commissioner Zimmerlink has yet to answer that question. As a matter of fact, she did not provide me with anything to give to the open records appeal officer until after the close of business the day it was due, despite the fact that I asked for any documents to be given to me the day before. She came down the day before, Sept. 17, late in the day asking if I spoke with our solicitor. When I told her I wanted to documents that day so I could have a day to respond, she asked, “What’s the rush?” She then waited until 4:33 p.m. the next day, Sept. 18,to e-mail me the response that was due to the Office of Open Records at 5 p.m. that day. That was after coming to my office at 4:20 p.m. and claiming that she had tried to call me at 4 p.m. I received no calls, and the courthouse closes at 4:30 p.m.
So, despite the fact that I asked the three commissioners to give me their responses the day before so I could properly prepare a response to the Open Records Office Appeals Officer, I did not get her response until less than a half an hour before it was due, and I had to stay in my office after hours. I believe that was a deliberate attempt on her part to wait until the last minute in the hope that I wouldn’t be in the office and therefore couldn’t provide a response.
She wrote that she gave me documents on Sept. 17, she didn’t, in fact, she didn’t even give me her three-page response until Sept. 18. The packet that included the letter of interest from Nov. 6, 2014, which was only signed by one commissioner, was not given to me until Sept. 21, after 3 p.m. I immediately made a file, because it hadn’t been available to me before then, no matter what Commissioner Zimmerlink claims.
The next day, Jim Killinger came to my office to view the documents and he signed a paper saying it was not what he was seeking. Why would I give him something he didn’t want? I wouldn’t.
For some reason, Commissioner Zimmerlink brought up other RTK responses that were “mishandled by county staff.” For the record, there was a contract released without redaction of a Social Security number. What she fails to say is that it was 18 months ago and it was addressed by a letter sent by a county solicitor to the person who received it because she thought it prudent to announce on a local blog that she had it. To continue to perpetuate the misconception that there have been problems is not accurate. I reiterate, that RTK issue was 18 months ago.
Commissioner Zimmerlink says half-truths are being stated. If they are, it isn’t by me.
Amy Revak
Chief Clerk of Fayette County