Easelgate Update
Editorial staff

An activist who is investigating Easelgate encountered delay tactics from the city last week – no surprise there. On the positive side, a resident provided valuable new information to this blog regarding the Easelgate cover-up. One resourceful informant has contributed leads about the cover-up with 100-percent accuracy.

Blog readers have offered helpful suggestions about investigating the city’s easel fiasco, which began April 22 when community activist Lisa De Paul-Snyder saw hundreds of broken easels piled up on city property. The city purchased 500 custom-built easels in an attempt to create a photo display of record-breaking length. City staff member Keith Rattay gave deceptive answers to Saddleback Valley News reporter Lindsey Baguio. Among his comments, he claimed the trashed easels were being “stored” on the ground for lack of space, and he lied by saying each easel cost only $15. Data provided by the city showed easels cost approximately $40 apiece, and activists believe each one cost more than $150 ($75,000 for 500 easels).

Readers have specifically asked for an investigation of Rattay’s claim that 150 volunteers contributed more than 800 hours in assembling the easels. His claim is obviously false; the city paid a contractor $45 an hour to make the easels. Rattay doesn’t get a pass on this one, and its time will come.

Currently, a top priority is to discover evidence of misappropriation of public funds. Leads from readers have directed attention to one city contractor, Jamey Clark. Clark has two contracts with the city, and he operates under at least two separate business names. If any reader has relevant information about Clark, please provide it by emailing this blog. Has anyone ever seen Clark or his employees performing work for the city? Has anyone observed Clark or his employees inspecting parks or working on city property? Does anyone have information about Clark billing the city inappropriately? All communication will remain confidential, and contributors may comment anonymously.

Activists who are reviewing the city’s financial documents regarding Easelgate continue to focus on irregularities and inconsistencies in Clark’s records. They found discrepancies among 59 pages of city documents released to De Paul-Snyder on July 2 after the city stalled for six weeks before releasing the information. The city is into its second week of delaying De Paul-Snyder’s latest request for public records. On July 10, she sent a clearly defined request to the city to get information about Clark. Following is her request for records:

• Any and all complete administrative and financial records, including, but not limited to, memos, e-mails, letters, the city's bid requests, bids received, quotations, work orders, itemized invoices, receipts, and checks issued, including dates, amounts, and applicable descriptions or memos, pertaining to city contractor Jamey Clark, Inc., from July 1, 2007, to July 10, 2008, inclusive."

On July 18, the city emailed De Paul-Snyder that staff members might need an additional 14 days:

• “Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(c), this email is to inform you that the City will respond to your request within fourteen days from the date of this email. A voluminous amount of separate and distinct records need to be searched and examined and multiple City departments may need to be consulted with in order to comply with the demands of your request.”

De Paul-Snyder reacted to the email, “Apparently, the city accounting department doesn’t keep records of their transactions with Jamey Clark, Inc., organized very well.” Is the city’s award-winning, crack-shot accounting team having difficulty finding its records for ONE city contractor? How long can it take 152.3 city employees to put their hands on one contractor’s file?

Even before evidence of criminal wrongdoing is known, at least two problems have become evident with the revelations of Easelgate: 1) a city staff member is out of control. He spent or approved spending an excessive amount on a taxpayer-funded project that generated almost no public participation or interest. He bypassed the council’s approval process to spend more than the $30,000 limit on any project. 2) The council has failed to supervise the city staff. Month after month, council members have approved the check register without asking any question about numerous big checks (including one for $58,724.07) to a city contractor for unknown activity.