Easelgate Update
Editorial staff

A blog reader commented last week, “City hall got busted. They threw away the easels and got caught. If the city had owned up in the first place, it would have been forgotten by now.”

A city employee made a big mistake in having workers dump approximately 200 broken easels on a hillside in plain view of anyone driving behind the Michaels store. A second mistake was spawning a story about how the easels were broken. Evelyn Olson’s May 30 letter to Saddleback Valley News about the easels being “vandalized by someone on a bike” lacked credibility.

City hall’s current dilemma is a resident’s request for public information about costs of the photo display. The initial request was filed on May 23, and the city legally had to respond within 10 working days. Instead of providing the documents in a timely manner, the city sent the resident a form letter saying 14 additional days would be needed to comply “because of the voluminous amount” of information that had been requested. After another 14 days (on June 17), the resident received another form letter stating an additional 14 days would be needed.

What’s the basis of the delay? It shouldn’t take 38 days to “find” the paperwork for easels, cameras, photo development, lamination and info about who took the pictures. That’s not the extent of information requested, but the delays call into question whether the city kept track of costs. It also causes speculation that costs may have been obscured as routine maintenance of city property. The request for information also asks why city property was discarded and where all the items from the display ended up.

Those following the issue have stated the city manager likely went over the limit of $30,000 – the amount he is authorized to spend without a vote of the city council. Some of the costs aren’t showing up in the city’s check register in ways they can be identified. Isn’t it curious that those looking through the check register can’t find the materials used in the display except for 500 disposable cameras?

In a concurrent matter referred to as Firegate, city staffers apparently gave themselves permission to spend approximately $35,000 in city tax dollars on county property. A city staff member acknowledged the cost of improving the county property at Fire Station No. 24 on Marguerite Parkway near Oso, plus $8,000 in yearly maintenance of landscaping. As with Easelgate, things don’t add up, and a resident has requested public records. As a related issue, how many other staff-generated projects have been kept out of public view with the false impression the cost would be under the $30,000 limit?

Something else is missing. Does anyone remember the extra-tall signboards that were used in such displays as the Veterans Day event? A resident estimated the city had at least 75 and maybe a lot more of them. Where are they today? Were they also “vandalized by someone on a bike” and taken to a county dump? The city staff appears to have empowered itself to create large-scale theatrical sets, some of which have a one-time use.

A blog reader commented about the money and labor going into these projects, “The 20th anniversary and some of the other events are similar to a senior prom. At the prom I attended, everyone raised funds and then spent a month building an elaborate set that was thrown away the next day.”

The city council should tell certain city staff members that their high school prom is over.