Local blogs are fired up this evening with Leslie Ghiz’s rude behavior at today’s City Council meeting (see reports by Andrew Warner, or Monica at Cincinnati Black Blog).  Apparently, she spent a disproportionate amount of her time sending text messages on her Blackberry.  We have heard similar behavior about both Pat DeWine and Phil Heimlich over at the County Commission meetings, too.  (Must be a Republican thing.)  The Cincinnati Beacon is pleased to present this action plan if anyone would like to respond to this thoughtlessness on behalf of our public leaders.

Send an open records request.  Seems pretty clear these messages pertain to public business, right?  Why else would these politicians be sending emails in the middle of televised public meetings?

If you like, just copy and paste this sample letter below for Ms. Ghiz.  Feel free to modify it however you like:

If you send her a request, tell us about it below!

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   21 Jun 2006  at  09:31 pm | #

   Did I hear Mayor Mallory ask citizens, during the first meeting of new council, to turn their phones off? Or at least on vibrate? Pepper broke himself of the habit before he left council. Perhaps that is why this letter should be sent as a reminder. Have an aide take care of the phone/e-mail for you and, if it is urgent, slide over and take the call. Seven attendees for various 501(c)3s (of the 50 or so executives and supporters represented)noted this callousness.

   So let me tamper with the title of the GhizGram’s huff about Mallory’s City Manager vote noted by the Enquirer blog:      ‘DISINGENUOUS’ MAYOR TO HOLD VOTE ON CITY MANAGER DESPITE ABSENCE OF VICE MAYOR….....

   DESPITE COUNCIL CHAMBERS PACKED WITH CONSTITUENTS,  LIZGHIZ’S DISPLAY OF
   ABSENTMINDFULNESS SHOWS HOW ‘B-BERRY DISINGENUOUS’ SHE HAS BECOME TOWARD CITIZENS

2. sparky says:
   21 Jun 2006  at  10:56 pm | #

   I happened to be at council today to support human services funding.  Ghiz spent almost the entire meeting typing on a blackberry in her right hand and a cell phone in her left hand.  It was very rude and inconsiderate.  She of all people being educated ought to know better.  The other council members, to their credit mostly paid attention to the speakers.

3. Glue Bill says:
   21 Jun 2006  at  11:13 pm | #

   I want to know if taxpayers are footing the bill for her Blackberry.  If so, let’s look at the record and see who she felt th eneed to text with for so long.

   Then we’ll move on to Heimlich and DeWine.

4. blueberry says:
   21 Jun 2006  at  11:41 pm | #

   Ghiz was probably texting back and forth with Pepper. He was giving her orders on how to try to make Mallory look bad.. so he can take revenge on Mallory for kicking his butt in the Mayor’s race.

5. cablewatcher says:
   21 Jun 2006  at  11:42 pm | #

   Dean, thanks for the great letter to Ghiz.
   Nia, VERY witty-thanks.

6. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  12:36 am | #

   Dean, thanks for this letter. There’s also another notorious addictberry in town, Nate Livingston. I’ve heard from plenty of police officers & victims that while sitting behind Kenny during actual Court proceedings, Nate sits there thumbing his little brains out. LAst time I was in a Court Room, there were signs posted on Court Room doors that all electronic devices are to be turned off before entering. I’ve been told Municipal Court confiscates these electronic toys.

   I’ll get with my contacts again to get dates, times, then I’ll look up the cases for reference & demand to know as to why the crackberry needs to be operational during judicial business. Push gets to shove, I’ll file a lawsuit on Nate for disrespecting the victims in these criminal cases. I’ll also consider filing a complaint with the Bar on Kenny for allowing his office boy to carry on in such a revolting manner.

   This too is extremely disrespectful & completely uncalled for. One would suspect Nate’s attempting to keep up his online diary with the rants.

   What goes for several public individuals, goes for another in a public setting. 

   I watched the replay of today’s Council meeting & I was not pleased at the conduct. Notice there was a stretch when they didn’t have a Quorum to make passage? And I hope I’m not wrong when I say this, but didn’t Mallory say at the get go on his campaign that the nonsense was going to stop at all the meetings? The meetings were to be conducted in a highly professional manner? Maybe I misunderstood what message he was attempting to convey. Or it’s just more stump rhetoric that’s been tossed in the trash.

7. Atty-Client Privelage says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  12:40 am | #

   I wonder if she does this on her CLIENT’S money during depositions like she is on City time? Does she bill THEM for her time on her Blackberry?  Maybe she is double-dipping?

8. Jacqueline Henretta says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  01:08 am | #

   I was pretty sure it was Ghiz and Cranely texting back and forth. They had their heads down the whole time…that is when Cranely was not having a conniption fit about Bortz’s thoughts on adding… not necessarily HIRING… 100 officers to the streets.

9. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  09:24 am | #

   If that’s true, it’s great news.  It means they might have been discussing the issue—and as such all those records will be available for us to study!

   Send your request today!

10. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:33 am | #

    This just in from Leslie Ghiz:

    Dear [Dean]-

    Thank you for your e-mail regarding a public records request for my blackberry emails and phone text messages.  These are not public record as I pay for both privately.  The only emails that are sent or received are from my law office and home emails.  No public money is spent for either.  Hence, they are not subject to public records law.

    However, this e-mail is subject to public records law.  I would be happy to have my office produce a copy for you, if you like.

    Keep up the good work.

    Leslie

11. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:54 am | #

    Here is the response I just sent back.  If anyone has some advice for how to pursue, please leave a comment with links!

    Councilmember Ghiz:

    As you are aware, Ohio Sunshine laws require you to provide public access to the records, meetings, conduct, and activities of government.  You are a part of Cincinnati government, and you were sending messages during televised City Council meetings.  How does this not qualify under Ohio Sunshine laws?

    As you are also aware, public records are defined as those held by a public office.

    So the next question is how to define a public office.

    Insofar as you are the agent of an office that performs the function of government, records pertaining to your conduct in that capacity are subject to review.

    I am not familiar with any stipulations in the Ohio Revised Code which differentiate between communication devices paid by yourself or paid by the government.  During a televised Council meeting, you are an agent of government and an office-holder.  That is why I only asked for communication during the meeting times, and not for messages sent during your monthly book club, or something of the sort.

    If it is your argument that you were not behaving in your capacity as an office-holder during the televised Council meeting, please advise and explain how this is possible.

    Thanks again,

    The Dean of Cincinnati

12. Suspicious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:58 am | #

    So let me get this straight…

    1. The Blackberry e-mails are private.
    2.The only e-mails and phone text messages sent or received are from her law office or home.
    3. Leslie Ghiz was texting and e-mailing during a Council meeting.

    Therefore, Leslie Ghiz was doing private business and business for her law clients on City time.
     
    Questions:
    1.Is she billing her law clients for that time spent e-mailing…while in Council chambers?
    2.Isn’t she getting a paycheck from the City to do Council work?
    3.Is she getting paid simultaneously for the work?

    We should, as citizens, request reimbursement for her time spent doing “personal” things on our public dime.  Didn’t she campaign to lower or get rid of council salaries anyway?

13. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:59 am | #

    Those are great points, suspicious.

    Why not email them to her?  Post her response when it comes!

    .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

14. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  11:25 am | #

    Ghiz just responded again, but not from the City address.  Is it a public record?

15. Howard Roark says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  12:27 pm | #

    Ohio Sunshine Laws - Update 2006

16. f says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  02:00 pm | #

    Ghiz just responded again, but not from the City address.  Is it a public record?

    no but you as the recipient can post it

17. Suspicious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  02:43 pm | #

    Dean,

    Maybe YOU should question Ms. Ghiz on the points I brought up.  At least you get an e-mail response. I am still waiting.

18. Howard Roark says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  03:00 pm | #

    Two points:

    1. I don’t believe that Councilmember Ghiz has the authority to determine what is a “public record”. This should be determined by the City Solicitor and the request should be sent to her attention.

    2. The emails were sent while conducting official public business and were done so while she was being compensated for conducting official public business and should be considered “public records”.

19. Dominique F. says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  03:15 pm | #

    Thanks, Howard!
    A great read for this hot summer night
    in the quarry!
    Succinct, informative; knowledge adds to
    the base of courageous thought & action.
    DF

20. Reginald Van Gleason IV says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  04:00 pm | #

    f is for Finney…....

21. f says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  04:08 pm | #

    reggie is for idiot

22. anon says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  04:42 pm | #

    Whattsamatta f inney, don\‘t you like getting outed? Boo Hoo…....

    Who pitches and who catches when you and Filthy Phil get together?

23. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  06:02 pm | #

    Thank you, Howard, for that resource.  I found the following excerpts noteworthy:

    From page 7:

    C. DEFINITION OF A “PUBLIC RECORD”
    Unless otherwise exempt, a public record is a “record” kept by a public office including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in Ohio kept by a nonprofit or for profit entity.

    A “record” is any item that:

    1. Contains information stored on a fixed medium (such as paper, computer, film, etc.)
    2. Is created, received, or sent under the jurisdiction of a public office
    3. Documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the office

    From page 9:

    If a public office transfers its public duties to a private entity, are the resulting records
    public or private?

    They are public records so long as three conditions are satisfied. In other words, a public office cannot avoid its responsibility for public records by transferring custody or even the record-making function to a private entity. The resulting records are public records, even if held by a private entity, if the following three conditions are met: (1) the private entity prepared the records to perform responsibilities normally belonging to the public office; (2) the public office is able to monitor the private entity’s performance; and (3) the public office may access the records itself. However, even where the public office does not have control over or access to such records, the records may still be deemed to be public.

    
    From pages 28-28:

    K. REMEDIES AND LIABILITIES UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
    . For Improper Withholding of Public Records

    The Attorney General has no enforcement authority under the Act, which means that the Attorney General cannot institute an investigation or a lawsuit on behalf of a private citizen. Rather, the public has the authority to enforce the Act. There are no criminal penalties or civil penalties for violation of the Public Records Act. Nonetheless, violation of the Public Records Act may result in a public office paying the requester’s attorney’s fees. If a person feels that a public office has wrongfully withheld public records, the only remedy available is to file a petition for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a court action that basically asks a court to order a public office to comply with the law. The request is called a “petition.” The person who files the mandamus is called the “relator,” while the entity that is holding the records is called the “respondent.” The order that is sought is called a “writ of mandamus.” To be entitled to the writ of mandamus, the relator will have to show that an appropriate request for a public record was made prior to the filing of the mandamus action.
    Mandamus does not need to be brought against the person ultimately responsible for the records; it needs only to name a person responsible. Where an official is under a legal duty to oversee a public body’s records, the official is “a person responsible.” If an official responsible for records denies a public records request, no administrative appeal to the official’s supervisor is necessary before filing a mandamus action in court.

    A mandamus is unique. A claim for a writ of mandamus can be raised even if the public records issue is involved or is on appeal in another case. Mandamus also permits forum shopping — it allows litigants to file for mandamus in the court where they feel they are most likely to prevail. This means that a person may file in one of three courts: the local court of common pleas, the appellate court for that district, or the Ohio Supreme Court. Note, however, if a relator files in the Ohio Supreme Court, the case may be assigned to mediation through the Court.

    The petition must specifically state the records that are being sought. If a public office loses in mandamus and the court finds that the relator is entitled to the records, the court may order that the attorney’s fees of the relator be paid by the public office. However, only those fees directly associated with the mandamus may be awarded and the relator is entitled to fees only insofar as the requests had merit.

    Whether or not to award attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. The court will consider several issues when making this decision, including whether the request was proper; whether the public office failed to comply with the request; whether the requester subsequently filed a mandamus; and, whether the public office subsequently turned over the records. If so, the court will then examine the benefit to the public of the relator’s action; whether there was a reasonable basis for refusal to provide access to the records; and, whether there is evidence of respondent’s bad faith.

    The opportunity to collect attorney’s fees does not apply when the requester appears before the court pro se. The Public Records Act authorizes only “attorney fees,” not compensation to pro se litigants, even where the pro se litigant is an attorney.

24. f says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  06:19 pm | #

    Whattsamatta f inney, don\’t you like getting outed? Boo Hoo…....

    Who pitches and who catches when you and Filthy Phil get together?

    again i have never met chris finney.

25. Eric says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  06:28 pm | #

    2. Is created, received, or sent under the jurisdiction of a public office

    Looks like this about covers it.  She was acting in official capacity during a council meeting, sitting in a council seat.

26. Pubric Lector says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  06:42 pm | #

    Sorry guys. If the content is personal or not work related, it is not public record even if the city pays the blackberry bill. That’s what “jurisdiction” circumscribes here. Likewise for love letters sent to Cranley on the city email. You don’t get them. I know you’d like to read the text and find some hook, but if you were honest with yourselves, you would admit that it’s really not there.

    If any of you had ANY journalism or political background you’d know this. That’s why the professionals are called “professionals.” They know what they’re talking about.

27. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  06:49 pm | #

    That’s entirely the point.  This is a no-win for Ghiz, and now it’s about documenting it precisely one way or the other.

    First, I’ll push for the public records end.  Maybe her Blackberry emails during this time were about the proceedings.  If so, I’d like to review how she conducts the City’s business in this fashion—which is also my business as a City resident.

    If that doesn’t work, it must only be because her messages were NOT related to public business.  If that is the case, we have verified that she something just like you suggest—sending love letters when she should be working for the public.

28. Really Impressed says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:08 pm | #

    Who gives a shit really? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

29. Really Really Impressed says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:11 pm | #

    And don’t say “that’s entirely the point.”  Your response to her above shows you have absolutely no idea of what is public record and what not. AND she admits it was to her law office. So what are you talking about, Jason? Shouldn’t you be looking through Monster.com or something?

30. Jacqueline Henretta says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:35 pm | #

    So, she was late after recess, granted so were a couple of others, but If everyone was as rude and distant as she was at their job, they would be fired. She was ignoring not only the speakers, but Mark Mallory and the other council members. When asked for her vote, she stutterd, while still reading her email….uhhh…yes…(still reading…turns on microphone)....yes, yes. SO RUDE!
    So sorry to tear you away from your email….TO DO YOUR JOB!
    We would really be impressed if you knew what the fuck you were talking about…and you really, really are an idiot.

31. Really Really Really Impressed and now also Outrag says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:36 pm | #

    So vote her out.

32. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:40 pm | #

    Dear “Really Really Impressed”:

    How do you know her emails in this case are not public records?  Just because they were sent from a non-government account does not mean they were unrealted to public business.

    There IS a precedent in the court for getting private emails to fall under open records laws.

    And what if she WAS doing business with her law firm.  Isn’t that double-dipping on the public dime?

33. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:41 pm | #

    So vote her out.

    This is not an election year.

34. Patience Grasshopper says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:44 pm | #

    Impeach her then.

35. Suddenly Unimpressed. says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:50 pm | #

    Being “related to public business” does not make it a public record. You have no idea what you are talking about and are making things up ad hoc. I thought you were a journalist Jason. I thought you were an activist. You are supposed to have some understanding of these things. You do not, but that does not stop you from pretending you do. This is why you are a joke. You can’t just say “I don’t know.” You have to be mister smartypants about everything.

    And so what if she was emailing her law firm. She has more than one job (maybe she’ll share on with you). There is no timeclock outside of City Hall that they have to punch. She’s free to do whatever she wants. What are you going to do about it?

36. Suspicious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  07:50 pm | #

    I sent the following e-mail to her earlier today.  I have yet to get a response. Perhaps if others send ask her these questions SOMEONE will get an answer.

    Ms. Ghiz:
    I read your response to The Dean of Cincinnati in his blog today and I want to be sure I have this correct.
    1. The Blackberry e-mails are private.
    2.The only e-mails and phone text messages sent or received are from your law office or home.
    3. You were texting and e-mailing during a Council meeting.
    Therefore, you were doing private business and business for your law clients on City time.

    Questions:
    1.Are you billing your law clients for that time spent e-mailing…while in Council chambers?
    2.Aren’t you getting a paycheck from the City to do Council work?
    3.Are you getting paid simultaneously for both jobs?
    If this is true, we should, as citizens, get reimbursement for your time spent doing “personal” things on our public dime. 
    I look forward to hearing your response.

37. Dubious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  08:32 pm | #

    Yes she is getting paid for both. One is a job, the other an office. You can hold both at the same time. There is no such thing as “City time”. There is no timecard. If you didn’t get a response it’s because your question is not serious.

38. Suspicious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  08:55 pm | #

    There may not be a “time card”, however, while in City Hall, at a City Council meetingm she is expected to be doing City business, for which she is paid—I believe around $60,000.  I have no issue with her having a job outside of City Hall.  I do however expect her to honor the “office” to which she was elected and give us her time.  If she is charging her clients for the time spent while at a council meeting, she is, indeed, getting paid for two jobs simultaneously.  As long as I am paying one of her salaries, I expect, as any employer would, her to actually DO that job for the pay.  While at her law office, she works for them. While at City Hall, she works for me and all other City taxpayers.

39. Dubious says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:18 pm | #

    She is getting paid simultaneously for both jobs anyway because they pay salaries. You may be making sambmiches at Subway for minmum wage, but she gets $60 a year free and clear. If you don’t like her crackberrying in chambers, that’s fine. But you look and Jason Haap look like idiots trying to figure out a legalistic angle on the shocking scandal. What Dale Mallory did was way worse than this.

40. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:24 pm | #

    You know, you are probably right about Dale Mallory.  But the story was way off my radar.  I was introduced to it through the Impeachmallory blog—which framed the whole thing in a very strange light.  It was hard to follow.

    Nevertheless, I kept the Beacon audience updated, wrote about them a few times, and acknowledged when they seemed to have proven their point.

    This is a separate story.  CityLink is rather West End specific, and I don’t live in the West End.  There are some strands that interest me, and I’ve been working on them when I can.

    Ghiz represents the whole City, and she is behaving badly.

    Now, if she were checking her email on a break, or during lunch, that would be one thing—but during a televised council meeting?  That’s something else entirely. 

    I mean, imagine a person who is both a sandwich maker and a brain surgeon.  When he or she has my skull cap removed, I don’t think that’s the time to pause for whipping up some mayonnaise.

41. Dumbfounded says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  09:42 pm | #

    Fine. You don’t like it. You don’t like anything. You didn’t like it when the Enquirer didn’t give Sylvan Greco’s yard signs equal coverage. You have poor judgement about what is important. You have WAAAYYYY too much time on your hands. But drop the FOIA nonsense. Just say to your readers: “I’m sorry. I never heard of FOIA before today. I don’t know how it works. I was making things up.” Crowley owns a bar. If he want’s to check his watch during the meeting, that’s his call. If he is thinking about his bottom line during the meeting, that makes him a complete person, not a double-dipper. If you don’t like it, your recourse is to evaluate his entire record and vote him out if you choose.

42. Really Dumbfounded Dumbass says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  10:01 pm | #

    ‘Dumbfounded’-What a Dumbfuck you are! You go on and on about the Dean ‘having too much time on his hands’, but what the fuck are you doing? How the fuck spare time do you have to keep writing the dumbfuck posts? You don’t even know what the fuck you are talking about either. You are a dumbass as well as a dumbfuck. You’re head is so far up your ass that you can smell your own breath. Shut up, get a life and go away.

43. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  10:01 pm | #

    C’mon silly.  I wrote a story about Sylvan Grisco’s homemade yard signs, because they had a kind of charm about them. 

    But here’s where you are mistaken.  You wrote: 

    If you don’t like it, your recourse is to evaluate his entire record and vote him out if you choose.

    No, I can also criticize them, in public, along the way.

44. cablewatcher says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  10:26 pm | #

    Crowley isn’t rude and disrespectful in chambers so you can’t compare him theoretically checking in on the bar with her repeated rude behaviors. Ghiz is an insolent egotistical witch and if it takes a technicality to show the public this, so be it.

45. barfly says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  10:34 pm | #

    Crowley has something her meanness is apparently alergic to, CLASS.

46. That's Right! says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  10:39 pm | #

    Jason, good job.  Forget the naysayers, Ghizzy shouldn’t be goofing off on our dime.  Leslie, remember that you were voted in, and you can be voted out.  Grow up and stop taking your position for granted.

47. Silly says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  11:04 pm | #

    Fine. She’s rude. She’s stupid. Crowley has class. But there is no “our dime”. You look like a bunch of amateurs when you start spinning these freedom of information arguments and all. There is no “technicality” here. Council people are free to check their watches, blackberries, planners all day long. Just say she’s rude and ugly and Republican. But quit pretending you know all about politics and law.

48. You are silly! says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  11:47 pm | #

    No “our dime?”  Who pays for a council person’s salary?  Tax payers?  How is that not our dime?

    I think the point is that elected officials should be a little more serious about they job they are paid to do - and playing constantly on the BlackBerry during a council meeting is not exactly serious.

49. Rilly Silly says:
    22 Jun 2006  at  11:57 pm | #

    I think the point is you can’t fire her for it. I think the point is there is no on the clock or off the clock. You pay her $60 this year whether she shows up or not. I think the point is that you don’t understand that holding office is not a “job”.

50. Leslie is that you? says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:03 am | #

    Cause you sure are funny!

51. Andrew Warner says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  01:22 am | #

    Rilly Silly,
    I don’t think it is as clear as all that. They can’t just show up when they feel like it. Mallory pointed out that Tarbell, and all members of council, have to give written notice to the mayor if they are going to miss council meetings. That shows that there is a minimum level of decorum and responsibility involved with being on council. To give this much slack, as you are attempting to do, is just ridiculous.

    Holding office is a job and to say other wise is just not sound thinking. You do work and you get paid for it. That is a job. Just because people have salaries does not give them the right to ignore their duties. Ask anyone else in the world who works for a salary.

52. Jobber says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  10:20 am | #

    OK, Andrew. What do you mean by HAVE TO? They HAVE TO give written notice. What are you going to do about it? Write her up. Is Tarbell going to be marked absent?

    Sorry. It’s not a “job”. It’s an office. You are what, like, 22? Maybe we shouldn’t expect someone at your stage in life to understand the difference. In fact it has been traditionally understood as a part-time “job”. COuncilpeople are expected to wear many hats. It is also the year 2006. I’m still waiting for my jet pack, but the rest of technology is here. Ghiz has the ability to keep in touch with the law office 24-7.

53. Howard Roark says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  10:54 am | #

    Silly & Dumbfounded—- Same person——

    In your attempt to expose Jason’s ignorance on the subject you’ve only proven that you have no idea of what you speak.

    The Freedom of Information Act is only applicable to federal agencies. The Ohio Public Records Act is the governing law that addresses public records and open meetings for state and municipal governments.

    I would ask that you follow your own advice, “...quit pretending you know all about politics and law”.

54. Howard the Duck says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:08 am | #

    Well, let’s not get too hung up, Howie. But in point of fact I never said “Freedom of Information Act,” I said “FOIA” (pronounced “foyah”) which is parlance in the biz for requesting public records. I appreciated your link to the Ohio Sunshine booklet, it is very nice. But go back and reread the absolutely amateurish nonsense in Jason’s letter to Ghiz. Obviously he’s never requested a public record before. I suspect that you have not either. It is all well and good to be a concerned citizen and to begin to find out about these things. But a poser like Jason Happ who dresses up in a black robe and plays “journalist” in his basement all day… pathetic. Get a clue.

55. Andrew Warner says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:14 am | #

    Jobber,

    You shouldn’t attack my age when you can’t even express coherent thoughts at however old you happen to be.

    First you say it’s not a job, then you say it’s understood to be a “part-time ‘job’.” Are you saying that anything considered to be a “part-time job” doesn’t require the worker to show up at the regular, assigned times?

    The fact that you are trying to explain away the responsibilities of office holders is just strange. Council members are hired by the voters, who also pay their salary, and upon campaigning for the job they know there are going to be certain responsibilities. Being a Catholic Priest isn’t a “job,” per se, but you can bet that the congregation would be in an uproar if the priest text messaged his way through Mass.

    Why are you so angry that Jason, or me, or whoever, a few of Leslie’s many bosses, would point out improper behavior of one of our civil servants? That, after all, is part of being an elected office holder (a position you claim to understand in great detail).

    The bottom line, your argument doesn’t make any sense. You have no reasonable logic to back up either of your claims, probably why you resort to discussing my age : 1) Elected office holders have 0 responsibility. 2) People shouldn’t criticize elected officials who dismiss their duties. Neither of those even deserve a response, but bloggers, like myself, can’t help but interject when someone as slow as you pretends they are smart. Please stop wasting the time of people who actually want to discuss issues by attempting to cloud a clear-cut argument with unhinged logic (as if you are trying to protect something).

56. Jobber the Slut says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:30 am | #

    As a “philosopher” you should realize the word “job” has a lot of different meanings. Cutting the grass is a job. So is being on the board of trustees. You can tell someone “good job”. But what you in your naivite do not understand is that office holders like Ghiz are expected to play more than one role at the same time. You can say it’s rude and inappropriate, but you have no basis for tripping her up on leaglistic technicalities. You probably can’t get the emails if what she says is true. Sorry. The terrible wrath of the blogosphere is the only consequence she will face.

    Where have I (or anyone in this thread) ever argued

    1) Elected office holders have 0 responsibility.
    2) People shouldn’t criticize elected officials who dismiss their duties.

    Where?

57. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:44 am | #

    ““FOIA” ronounced “foyah”) which is parlance in the biz for requesting public records”

    Oh, look folks, he thinks that he’s a real ‘insider’!

    He is a total shitbag!

58. Total Shitbag says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:50 am | #

    Don’t believe me? Just Google “FOIA Ohio” and see how the term is used interchangeably by the ACLU, Ohio PIRG, several newspapers, even Bob Fitrakis. Nothing “inside” about Google.

59. Andrew Warner says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:51 am | #

    The differences in the word job are parts of speech, not philosophy. That would be like saying the meaning of the word “saw” is comparable when saying “I saw a movie” or “I used a saw to cut down the tree.” That type of comparison is total nonsense.

    1)

    I think the point is there is no on the clock or off the clock. You pay her $60 this year whether she shows up or not.

    —as you can see, 0 responsibility.

    2) The 2nd point is evidenced by the constast personal attacks of Jason mostly. Telling him he should get a job instead of paying attention to “minute details” like this. The general lack of appreciation and notion that all of this is a big waste of time.

    Here is one for example:

    Who gives a shit really? Don?t you have anything better to do with your time?

60. Howard Roark says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:02 pm | #

    Silly says:
    22 Jun 2006 at 11:04 pm | #

    You look like a bunch of amateurs when you start spinning these freedom of information arguments and all.

    Dumbfounded says:
    22 Jun 2006 at 09:42 pm | #

    But drop the FOIA nonsense. Just say to your readers: “I’m sorry. I never heard of FOIA before today. I don’t know how it works. I was making things up.”

    I have submitted an Ohio Public Records Request and by virtue of previous employ, had to comply with one. Please don’t even think that you know anything about my level of knowledge concerning City of Cincinnat municipal operations.

    And no, it is not parlance in the biz. Having been a part of “the biz” it was the ignorant that used the term.

61. Jobber the Saw says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:02 pm | #

    I guess “job” can be used as a verb (as in “jobber”) but it’s not about parts of speech at all. It’s not even about homonyms. It’s about the semantics of the word. A job can be a task or it can be a position. Your use viz. Ghiz is rhetorical and metaphorical. She’s not “hired” she’s elected.

    So how do you conclude

    —as you can see, 0 responsibility.

    from

      I think the point is there is no on the clock or off the clock. You pay her $60 this year whether she shows up or not.

    ?
    And to demonstrate 2) You’ll have to show Ghiz has dismissed some determinate duty. She was only (rudely, perhaps) text messaging during a meeting.

62. Silly Billy says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:04 pm | #

    Howie:
    Did you get the records?

63. Silly Billy says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:07 pm | #

    Howie:

    The real problem I have with you is this pronouncement:

    2. The emails were sent while conducting official public business and were done so while she was being compensated for conducting official public business and should be considered “public records”.

    I don’t think simultaneity of occurance is going to convince a judge. But you can try.

64. Silly Willy says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:18 pm | #

    I want to stop, Howie, but this is too good. You say

    And no, it is not parlance in the biz. Having been a part of “the biz” it was the ignorant that used the term.

    So the ACLU are ignorant? You know more than the ACLU about FOIA requests? Have you Googled it yet, like I asked?

65. Howard Roark says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:19 pm | #

    Yes—- my records request is the same one that was used by the City Solicitor.

    Without challenging the existing laws, they won’t change. If I wanted to collude with other members of council during meetings, we would only need to communicate on our “private” devices and this would circumvent open meetings requirements even if we were in a public meeting.

    The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two different things.

66. Sil says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  12:29 pm | #

    What question are you answering?

67. Mea Culpa says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  01:11 pm | #

    Let’s say what it was:

    Ghiz was supposed to be paying attention to a Council Meeting..for which she was elected.

    Ghiz was texting and e-mailing almost the whole meeting.

    Ghiz was not doing her “job” or for those who prefer, was not fulfilling her duty as an elected official, therefore, she was not adequately representing her constituents.

    She has not, to my knowledge, apologized to the citizens for her lack of attention to her elected office.

    At the very least she should offer an open apology to the citizens of Cincinnati. Perhaps an open letter to the editor.

    
    I for one need to hear “Mea Culpa” before I offer any further support.

68. f says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  01:45 pm | #

    I had forgotten about a leslie ghiz quote till now

    “When she announced her candidacy in March, Ghiz promised to become “the new Pat DeWine on Cincinnati City Council”

    http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051113/NEWS01/511130361

    given their blackberry problems i guess that she is already succeding

69. Dominique F. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  04:08 pm | #

    This is a very helpful line of question and comment. Even in disagreement the dialogue allows for an education of some of us not as savvy , but who would like to know more about how to coordinate better as intelligent citizens through governmental minefields. 

    Originally an act of play, disdain and smugness that we got a bit ruffled over, the matter that an educated and elected official acted childish or immature revolves back to how much we are willing to endure from ANY officials acting in such a manner with disregard toward citizens. This is a non-partisan issue. How BEST can we chose to solve some matters in present or future?

    Thanks, Howard, for the connection to the state information for Open Meetings and Public Records. While a bit dry, it serves to awaken questions that place a public face to such matters. Any of us serving or going to serve on boards, committees, and various agencies receiving local, state, federal funds and support are learning from this round of dialogue.  Would we have been so informed by other media? Not unless it sold papers.

    Howard’s     “Yes—- my records request is the same one that was used by the City Solicitor.    Without challenging the existing laws, they won’t change….
    The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two different things.” Allows us to come to embrace that, as conscious citizens, we need to challenge sometimes to uncover facts and motives. To be better captains of our ships.

    Perhaps we are now more aware that the spirit of the law, when one is more cognizant and sees the navigation therein, may be able to impact how we change laws, or demand their enforcement. A more aware citizen body is not a bad thing.

    Thanks to all who have contributed!

70. Blackberry Belle says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  04:30 pm | #

    Dominique,

    That is a very beautiful and articulately written sentiment. It just seems a little incongruous to get so exercised over a councilwoman checking her portable text device in the year 2006. Hardly the stuff tyrants are made of.

    Thanks, Howard, for the connection to the state information for Open Meetings and Public Records.
    ...
    Would we have been so informed by other media? Not unless it sold papers.

    In point of fact, the Enquirer’s Gregg Korte is co-chair of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ohio Freedom of Information Committee and linked to the document a year ago when it was released. So your beliefs on that point do not correspond to reality.

71. Susan B. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  05:58 pm | #

    My issue with Ms. Ghiz is that she seems so flippant about it and isn’t taking it seriously. 

    Her comment to the Dean

        “However, this e-mail is subject to public records law.  I would be happy to have my office produce a copy for you, if you like.”

    seems to me like she is just trying to be a smart#@@.

72. Flip says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  06:02 pm | #

    Jason Haap is just being a smart ass in the first place. How seriously should anybody take him?

    Ask a stupid question…

73. Susan B. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  06:06 pm | #

    The difference is that she is a public figure, elected (unfortunately) by the people.  She SHOULD therefore show a little more decorum when responding to the public—though that seems to be asking too much of her.—- remember the “bull poopie” quote in the Enquirer?

    Now that I look back on it, this should not be a surprise. It is totally in her character to have little to no class.

74. Willie d. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  06:11 pm | #

    I didn’t vote for her and don’t particularly like her. But I don’t care about her crackberry and I can understand the impish desire to rub Jason Haap’s amateurish hijix back in his face. If Jason wants to be a smartass with her, he deserves an equally phony and irritationg response. I don’t see it as a lack of class. I see it as killing him with kindness.

75. Howard Roark says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  06:13 pm | #

    BB - Dominique’s point does correspond to reality in the sense that information was provided in the context of selling papers.

    This information has been provided by the Enquirer in conjunction with their series on obtaining public records. Don’t have the time to research, but do remember reading.

    Korte’s obscure blog from 2005 doesn’t really count.

    Whether or not portable devices are ubiquitous today or rises to the level of tyranny is not relevant, but drawing a line in the sand that says what is public and what is private is the point.

    Also, who gets to determine what is private vs. public. In this case, Ghiz simply states that it is private. She does not have authority to make this decision. It is the responsibility of the City Solicitor.

    While the link is tenuous at best, she was conducting official and probably private business during a regularly scheduled public meeting.

    
    1.4 Rule of Courtesy and Decorum.
    The council of the City of Cincinnati recognizes that our citizens are our most valuable asset. Our citizens deserve and should expect to receive and be given a courteous, respectful hearing of their views.

    The council chamber is the peoples’ chamber. Our citizens should be made to feel welcome with an appropriate greeting at the beginning of each council and committee meeting.

    Council recognizes that frequently our citizens make significant personal sacrifices to attend council and committee meetings as well as public hearings. Council shall be respectful of the time being given by citizens and shall endeavor to hear from them in a prompt and timely manner.

    Council recognizes that citizens coming before council may not always agree with the views of some or all of the members of council. Nonetheless those views should be heard respectfully without reproach or admonition. In any debate of public issues differences of opinion are to be expected and the civil airing of those differences is encouraged as it helps to test ideas and develop consensus. Debate, however, should never become a personal attack which criticizes the character of the speaker rather than the wisdom of his or her ideas.

    Letters to councilmembers deserve serious consideration and a timely, appropriate response. Letters to the clerk of council, even those that may be critical, should be made a part of the record of council.

    Decorum and civility shall be observed at all times by members of council even though it may not be reciprocated. This includes prompt and regular attendance at all meetings of council, including those dedicated to public comment. In addition, while citizens are addressing council, the members of council shall not engage in
    lengthy side conversations. Such conversations shall occur outside council chambers.

    Council is also entitled to expect those coming before its meetings and committees to be respectful of other citizens, staff and members of council.

    Members of council shall hold themselves and each other accountable for complying with these standards remembering that the council does the peoples’ business.

    2.8 Regular Meetings.
    The purpose of regular city council meetings is to allow members of council and city officials to conduct the city’s business.

76. Kurt E. S. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  06:39 pm | #

    Everything a paper does is in the context of selling papers. That’s how come they can afford to hire professionals like Gregg Korte. Nevertheless, they do a much better job of using FOI laws and publicizing them than this hobby “web magazine”. You may recall the annual Sunshine Week celebrated every March.

    Anyway, it really doesn’t matter. It’s like saying Cranley was chewing gum in session and wouldn’t spit it out. You call it discourteous only because you don’t like her in the first place.

77. Susan B. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  07:04 pm | #

    There is a difference between chewing gum at a council meeting and texting and e-mailing.

    If someone is chewing gum, it does not keep them from giving you their full attention.
    If someone is texting and e-mailing, that is taking their attention.

    Think if you were trying to talk to a friend or your spouse about an important issue and they didn’t even look at you but sat there and sent e-mails and text messages to someone else.  I am sure you would consider their behavior discourteous and rude.

    People came to City Hall to discuss, with their elected representatives, important issues to them and Ms. Ghiz didn’t even look them but sat there and sent e-mails and text messages to someone else.

78. Take a chill pill says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:28 pm | #

    Who give a shit?

79. AllysaB says:
    24 Jun 2006  at  01:02 pm | #

    I don’t have a problem with Ghiz in general, but I think it was disrespectful for her not to be paying attention to citizens at a council meeting and then her arrogent response to the Dean is even worse. Shame on her and we will certainly make note of that and be paying attention to her. I’m glad somebody is calling out these people that are supposed to represent us, because once they get elected they think they don’t have to respect the public.

    There are anonymous bloggers that will always be apoloigist for the bad behavior of our representatives. I wonder how many of them are on her staff and on who’s time it is.

80. Seriously says:
    24 Jun 2006  at  01:53 pm | #

    Seriously, though. Who really gives a fuck? Why should she take seriously a clown like Jason Haap/all about town in a cap and gown? Should she respond seriously to open letters from Scooby Doo?

81. Phil Heimlich's Corrupt Crony says:
    24 Jun 2006  at  03:25 pm | #

    f is for f inney….

82. Hyde Park Near says:
    24 Jun 2006  at  04:06 pm | #

    How can Ghis be taken seriously when several votes that day VERY OBVIOUSLY interrupted her text messaging.  Everyone there saw her behavior.  She could have end all this discussion by apologizing for her unprofessional behaviour.  No, not Ghiz, she is too proud and full of herself to do anything but hide behind her flunkies and issue meaningless doublespeak responses.  Whatever flack she is getting is well deserved.

83. Dave says:
    25 Jun 2006  at  01:42 pm | #

    It is interesting to note that whenever a thread gets close to the truth the response is always the same. Name calling and distraction are the tools employed. Oh, what a dumb shit for even noticing illegal behavior. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

    There is no better use of time than persuing the truth! Keep the heat on Dean, Andrew, and all other concerned citizens. The FOIA fun has just begun. Where is Peter Deane?

84. Scooped says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  12:49 pm | #

    Once again, scopped by the Enquirer, which ran this photo December 1, 2005:
    Crackberry

85. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  01:33 pm | #

    No, silly.  The scoop is in pinning down definively what she thinks she’s doing.

86. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  01:36 pm | #

    BTW, these footnotes, from the Sunshine law book linked above, strikes me as key:

    The footnoted line:

    They are public records so long as three conditions are satisfied. In other words, a public office cannot avoid its responsibility for public records by transferring custody or even the record-making function to a private entity.*

    The footnote:

    *State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Krings (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 654, 2001 Ohio 1895, 758 N.E.2d 1135; State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey (1997), 76 Ohio St.3d 1224, 669 N.E.2d 1148; State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ. Co. v. City of Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31 1996 Ohio 379, 661 N.E.2d 187; State ex rel. Medina County Gazette v. City of Brunswick (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 661, 672 N.E.2d 1070 (Medina County); State ex rel. Fostoria Daily Review Co. v. Fostoria Hosp. Assn. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 10, 531 N.E.2d 313.

    Anyone have Lexis/Nexis out there? Is that what we need to get the court docs?  Looks to me like these cases involve handing over records from something like a private email.

87. Silly says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  01:41 pm | #

    No, Sorry. There’s no ice cream left for you. “..let the boys/ Bring flowers in last month’s newspapers.” Your vanity “web magazine” has once again been shown to be nothing more than a third tier content aggregator. Old Enquirer news from 7 months ago. Kinda sad.

88. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  01:42 pm | #

    Leslie, it’s impressive how many comments you have caused to be left here!  But I’ll play along.

    The Enquirer posted a picture in a picture gallery.  That’s it.  I’m going after the records.

    Goodbye!

89. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  01:43 pm | #

    BTW, even after The Enquirer picture, she has not changed her attitude. 

    This behavior should stop.

    That is my goal.

    Do you disagree?

90. Sillyass says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  02:51 pm | #

    Silly seems very preoccupied with this site. Very odd for someone who considers this site to be a “vanity web magazine” and “a third tier content aggregator”. Yet silly posts on the Beacon day and night everyday!

    Is silly being disingenuous with their comments, are they a hypocrite or a just plain sillyass?

    Dean or Andrew need to post the sillyass’s IP so we can see if they are a jealous Enquirer reporter, or a jilted local republican lawmaker. Then we can tear their personal life apart.

91. Go For It says:
    27 Jun 2006  at  12:53 pm | #

    Yes, Jason, you nailed it.  We want the behavior to stop.  Put citizens first.  Can’t wait to see your follow up.

92. Howard Lipschitz says:
    27 Jun 2006  at  11:24 pm | #

    Any action yet or have we moved on already?

93. Matt says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  09:40 am | #

    Howard

    There will be no more action on this. 
    The hypocrisy is just too blatant -even for Jason.

    In hindsight I’m sure ‘The Dean’ wishes he never brought up the
    issue of access to public records and transparency.

94. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  10:18 am | #

    There is no hypocrisy, no matter what anyone finds in the public records of a private citizen.  I am not a duly elected representative paid to conduct the people’s business.

95. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  10:18 am | #

    Howard, I think the issue needs to be taken to the City Solicitor—and if memory serves, she has no email.  So we need to preferably hand-deliver the issue to her attention.

96. Mattwisheshedidanything says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  01:18 pm | #

    You could conduct a phone interview or just go down to visit. Maybe you should ask Silly Ghiz if she’s going to take that pay cut she campaigned on. Maybe that’s why she feels she can do private bussiness in Council instead of listening to the people that she’s supposed to represent. Keep posting Silly Ghiz, I love to watch people in a hole keep digging. Tell us some more about how the Dean has a Silly website and more good “Bull Poopie”.

97. Howard Lipschitz says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  03:47 pm | #

    I think… We need to… Still sounds like more plan than action.

98. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  04:00 pm | #

    Been a bit busy, Howard.  Why not try yourself?

99. Howard Lipschitz says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  04:15 pm | #

    I think you should follow through with your own promises. Or else don’t make such grand pronouncements.

    Was it Bukowski or Hemmingway who said “Always do sober what you said you’d do drunk. That’ll teach you to keep your mouth shut”?

100. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
     28 Jun 2006  at  04:23 pm | #

     Is there a time limit?  What’s your rush?  It’s been one week.

     Pay me and I’ll work full-time for you.

101. Howard Lipschitz says:
     28 Jun 2006  at  04:31 pm | #

     Well if you are going to do it, you should do it. Nobody’s going to pay you to do what you said you’d do. You are an adult now. If you need some money, I would suggest a full time job.

     I think your heart’s in the right place, but what is the Solicitor going to do if the emails are personal as she says?

102. Matt says:
     28 Jun 2006  at  04:35 pm | #

     Would you believe anything Bukowski said, drunk or sober?

103. Dizzy Ghizzy says:
     28 Jun 2006  at  07:29 pm | #

     My Leslie, you sure are a vindictive one.  That comment above - the one that you’ve been posting all over the place- was really something. 

     Ever heard of karma?

104. n8 says:
     29 Jun 2006  at  12:13 am | #

     [This comment has been deleted, because a special article has been started to host this particular strand.  Post your comments in the appropriate forum, and don’t waste space in an unrelated conversation.]

105. funnelcake says:
     29 Jun 2006  at  12:49 pm | #

     Simple solutions for Ghiz,
     Since personal e-mail & perhaps work related e-mail was transmitted via the blackberry during that time, & client confidentiality agreements prevent her from making that type of information public, the way to provide the Deans request would be to get an estimate from a trusted legally bound 3rd party on what it would take to search through those e-mails for the requested time period for anything relating to City Council business.

     The Dean, as the requestor would have to be willing to pay the costs associated with the document retrieval.  He might not be willing to pay those costs.  And he might be willing to, but come up with nothing City Council related.

106. ??? says:
     29 Jun 2006  at  03:26 pm | #

     What’s the problem here.  This is about Ghiz!

     Show us the money!