The Proposal

November 2010

A request for voluntary and codified changes to the way Portland City offices treat records requests from Neighborhood Associations and other community-based groups.

We Request:
1) Commissioners voluntarily direct bureaus to allocate a portion of their 2010-11 budgets to providing free-of-charge access for document requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based, non-profit organizations.

2) Commissioners voluntarily direct all City offices and bureaus to accept a default working principle of “digitize and post publicly” for work products moving forward. Direct offices to innovate fast and affordable information sharing methods that reduce paper consumption, with the goal of making it simple for the public to stay informed without formal information requests. Direct offices to accept and respond to regular citizen input (by phone, email, or online form) about the specific information the public deems valuable and would like to find shared online by default.

3) Craft and execute an adjustment to the City’s Public Access to Records policy (BCP-ADM-8.03) to codify no-charge access to information requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based organizations.

Discussion of Financial Impact
The funds required to fulfill public records requests from community-based organizations and Neighborhood Associations should represent a relatively small portion of a bureau’s “public involvement” budget. As an example, consider the Portland Water Bureau public records requests for a one year period in comparison to its public involvement budget for a one year period. Recently, the Portland Water Bureau conducted a “snapshot” study of ALL public records requests (not just those from community groups, but all requests) at their bureau for fiscal year 2008-2009. Including requests for correspondence, email communication, publications, maps, billings, customer account water consumption data, and financial documents the bureau amassed $37,000 in that one year period (described as “staff time” and “resources”). This bureau’s public involvement budget was listed as $614,759 for the one year period of FY 2009-10. All requests to this bureau represent just 6% of their “public involvement” budget, and less than 1/16th of 1% of their total budget for the year (total PWB budget for FY 2009-10 was over $148 million).

Increasing digital access will reduce the impact of formal records requests, both by reducing the number filed and by reducing the time required to fill each request. Requiring bureaus to offer free access to certain citizen groups, minimally impacts bureau budgets and will likely inspire City offices to quickly innovate less resource consuming ways to publish public information.

Why this proposal benefits Portlanders
Information is essential for an involved and engaged public. Portlanders value civic engagement, and information fosters the vibrant civic life that characterizes our city. Engaged citizens provide invaluable support to city government initiatives. In 2009 alone, Solarize Portland, the SE Tool Library, and massive neighborhood clean-up events exemplified how engaged citizens can generate incredible support for government initiatives, amplifying the effectiveness of those initiatives at little or no-cost to government. An informed citizenry is a smart investment in a volunteer-labor force that returns tangible dividends.

But who decides what information interests the public? Publishing decisions are usually made by the bureaucracies generating the information. It’s important to remember that in delegating authority, the citizens of Portland do not give their public servants the right to decide what is and what isn’t good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Citizens fund the staff, the computer and the overhead that go into creating our public records. At the heart of this proposal is the belief that, when practicable, citizens should be given free-of-charge access to the final product of work they’ve already funded.

The supporters of this proposal believe the fee structure currently employed in City Policy is restricting the citizenry’s access to information. A 2007 study of government transparency in the 50 states gave Oregon an “F.” As stated in Binding City Policy 8.03, “the City of Portland prides itself in citizen access to City records, which is a fundamental component of democracy.” As such, we request that the City continues to evolve the policy in reaction to citizen input.

This year, Oregon’s Attorney General surveyed sunshine laws around the country, revealing a number of practices that seem to foster information access better than our local policies. For example, at least 11 states limit document request fees by excluding the cost of staff time, such that inspecting records is generally free (this is true in cities like Seattle and Austin). Contrast this with Portland’s policy, which allowed a neighborhood volunteer to be charged $57 for the time it took her to read a document while sitting in a bureau office. Many states that permit the inclusion of staff time do so only after a certain threshold -- in Austin, Texas, for example, a requestor does not pay for labor on requests requiring less than 50 copies. Several states set a flat hourly rate for all staff/labor charges, usually between $10 and $15 dollars. Contrast that with Portland’s staff time charges which are laboriously calculated for each City employee involved in a request, resulting in staff charges that run the gamut from $20 to almost $200 an hour (for upper level employees).

Meeting the Public Interest Test
According to the Oregon Attorney General’s Manual on Public Records, a “matter or action is commonly understood to be 'in the public interest' when it affects the community or society as a whole, in contrast to a concern or interest of a private individual or entity." In applying the public interest test, custodians are directed to decide if the information requested is a personal matter of interest solely to the party requesting it, or if the subject involves public business of interest to the broader community.

Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can effectively telegraph true citizen-interest from the community to the government. Community-based organizations are often formed around a very current issue of great community concern. Neighborhood Associations are uniquely integral to the proper functioning of this city. As active participants in land development processes, including long-range city planning and code enforcement, they keep the land’s use grounded in the will of the citizenry. Volunteers from NA’s and other community organizations carry community issues down to city hall and meet face to face with Commissioners and decision makers, keeping them current and informed with a wide variety of perspectives. Made-up of citizens themselves, these organizations can act as a first-level filter on defining “in the public interest” from the community’s perspective.

Providing access to the information communities deem valuable without the limiting burden of onerous fees is a reasonable investment of public funds. Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can provide a means by which information can flow from government to citizens, according to the values shared by both government and citizen (those shared values being free access to public information without over burdening either party with unreasonable associated costs). When a request is backed by a community organization or a Neighborhood Association, and the information is intended to be shared with the community (i.e. the members of that community-based organization), that information should be regarded as meeting the standard of “in the public interest”.

Summary
Clearly, opportunity exists for Portland to improve its public records policy. The supporters of this proposal seek to start with just one change, that declares the city’s commitment to transparency and an engaged citizenry by providing free-of-charge access to public records when the request represents a plurality of public will. We seek to clarify for City document-custodians that requests supported by Neighborhood Associations and other community-based organizations inherently meet the Public Interest Test, and therefore will be offered codified relief from public records access fees. We believe this specific policy change will simplify request fulfillment for City employees, it will help keep Portland’s government transparent, and it will inspire the City to innovate information access so as to reduce waste and the need for formal requests.

FAQs

Won’t it be expensive and time consuming for city employees to digitize their work?
Just about everything produced in today’s workplace is done so on a computer, so the data originates in a digital form. City employees can simply save or print to “PDF” any document the public requests.

Digitizing older work products is an entirely separate issue requiring more resources. However, we have to jump in at some point and make it the standard to print to PDF; the longer we wait the more catch-up we have to do. These issues, digitizing as you work vs. catching-up digital access for older documents should not be confused, as one is sometimes used as an excuse to avoid launching the other.

Doesn’t this amount to special treatment for one group?
The public interest test inherently grants government the opportunity to treat entities differently. The factors to be weighed in this test include not just an analysis of the material requested, but an analysis of the requestor. For instance, whether they have the ability to disseminate the information (news organizations are allowed to be treated differently under this analysis).

The law provides equal access for all and current policy meets the law. Dropping the fee for one party doesn’t in any way further restrict another party’s access. Every citizen in Portland has access to a Neighborhood Association from which he/she can seek support for a document request. This allowance will benefit the broader community, not just one special interest.

Endnotes.....
*1 - “Results and Criteria of BGA/NFOIC survey,” available at http://www.nfoic.org/uploads/results1.pdf
*2 - Attorney General’s Government Transparency Report, October 2010

An Idea...

During my time as the Land Use Chair of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association, I have requested access to a wide range of publicly owned information on behalf of my neighborhood. I am dismayed to report that despite the era’s technological advances, a citizen’s access to information appears to be growing more and more limited. I have a proposal regarding fee waivers and the lack of clarity posed by the phrase “in the public interest.” At the heart of my proposal is the belief that every community should have multiple portals through which information can be accessed free-of-charge, as fees prove to be a significant factor limiting the public’s access to said information.

Information fosters civic engagement. Engaged citizens provide invaluable support to city and state initiatives. In 2009 alone, Solarize Portland, the SE Tool Library, and massive neighborhood clean-up events exemplified how engaged citizens can generate incredible support for government initiatives, amplifying the effectiveness of those initiatives at little or no-cost to government. An informed citizenry is a smart investment in a volunteer-labor force that returns tangible dividends.

But who decides what information will engage or interest the public? More often than not, the decision about what to publish is left to the bureaucracies generating the information. A structured dialog between government and citizenry is impractical here, with any real frequency. However, community-based non-profit organizations can, effectively, telegraph true citizen-interest from the community to the government. Community-based non-profits are on the ground with the citizens, and they are, often times, formed around a very current public interest. Made-up of citizens themselves, these organizations can act as a first-level filter on defining “in the public interest” from the community’s perspective. When a request is backed by a community organization, and the information is intended to be shared with the community (i.e. the members of that community-based organization), arguably that information could be regarded as meeting the standard of “in the public interest”.

Providing communities access to the public information they deem valuable, without the limiting burden of onerous fees, is a reasonable investment of public funds. Community-based non-profit organizations could provide one portal through which information could flow from government to citizens, according to the values shared by both government and citizen (those shared values being free access to public information without over burdening either party with unreasonable associated costs). My specific proposal is that all information access requests generated from within a community-based non-profit be granted codified relief from associated fees, especially those fees levied for supervised reviews, reviews, research, and staff time.

For most government agencies, the funds required to fill public records requests from community-based organizations will represent a relatively small portion of their existing “public involvement” budgets. As an example, consider the Portland Water Bureau public-records requests for a one year period in comparison to its “public involvement” budget for a one year period. Recently, the Portland Water Bureau conducted a “snapshot” study of ALL public records request activity at their bureau for fiscal year 2008-2009 (including requests for correspondence, email communication, publications, maps, billings, customer account water consumption data, and financial documents); the bureau amassed $37,000 (described as “staff time” and “resources”) in that one year period. This bureau’s public involvement budget was listed as $614,759 for the one year period of fiscal year 2009-2010. All of this bureau’s requests represent just 6% of their public involvement budget. As information is key to getting the public involved and engaged, I believe it is a reasonable request to allocate some portion of funds to subsidize public access via community-based organizations.

In Portland, Neighborhood Associations are uniquely integral to the city’s proper functioning, yet they are completely un-funded and they operate solely on volunteer labor and donations. Neighborhood Associations are active participants in land development processes in our city, including long-range city planning and current code enforcement. Neighborhood Associations keep the land’s “use” grounded in the needs and desires of the citizenry. Neighborhood Association volunteers carry community issues down to city hall, meeting face to face with Commissioners and decision makers, providing valuable ground-tested knowledge about life in this city. Often our efforts help keep decision makers current and informed with a wide variety of perspectives. Additionally, all of the volunteer-based initiatives I cited earlier are direct outgrowths of Neighborhood Associations. I am a volunteer with my neighborhood’s Association, which represents roughly 10,000 people. Our board and our meetings are open to the public. We field requests for support and information on any number of issues that make their way to our meetings. Portland’s Neighborhood Associations serve as communication tools between the citizens and their government, arguably acting as a filter for defining what meets the standard of “in the public interest”. I propose that Neighborhood Associations be granted codified relief from public information access fees, especially those fees levied for supervised reviews, reviews, research, and staff time.

The Kelly Butte tank teaches us a lesson about big consultants

On March 17, 2010, Portland's City Council gave the go ahead to the Portland Water Bureau to start the uber-expensive and unnecessary new water tank at Kelly Butte. The contract is going to Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). MWH has secured most of the largest PWB contract awards over the last decade, MWH employees were involved in writing the LT2 Rule that Portland is now citing as the reason they must build this new tank at Kelly Butte, and reportedly, it was MWH that originally conceived of this idea to build a tank we don't need at Kelly Butte almost a decade ago. One might also note, MWH constructed the famously faulty buried tanks in Seattle which have contaminated that city's water supply.

There were two companies on the official “short list” to get the Kelly Butte contract; one was MWH and the other was a company called AECOM. AECOM is another mammoth global engineering firm. This year, Friends of the Reservoirs and I have found CH2MHill and MWH bidding on contracts, such as the Powell Butte contract, under other names. For instance, with the Powell Butte project we saw two bids come in: one from CH2MHill and one from Tetra Tech. The Tetra Tech bid turned out to be a consortium of multiple players, including MWH and Black & Veatch. AECOM has a history of working with CH2MHill on lucrative contracts. (Note the consortium called “Transcend” that was developed this time last year for a large rail project in the UK).

Also note on the Kelly Butte meeting sign in sheet, CH2MHill listed itself as a “SUB” or subcontractor for this project and AECOM listed itself as a “PRIME” or the prime contractor for this project. Which means AECOM was planning on submitting its bid under its own name, and CH2MHill is/was planning on working under some other company on this project.

As citizens become more alarmed at the influence particular firms have over large projects in Portland, we should expect to see those firms occasionally mask their participation in large contracts so as to lesson appearances of impropriety. Something to be aware of as more contracts move forward. The top name does not necessarily tell you who the real players are behind the contract. The only way to know which companies are truly benefiting from these large contract awards is to request to see every bid -- a costly prospect given the Portland Water Bureau's refusal to recognize fee waivers for community organizations and their insistence on charging for every form of access to these bids.

Letter to Ombudsman regarding incident at PWB Jan 11

From: S.Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:31 PM
To: 'Mills, Michael (Ombudsman)'Subject: bad experience with document request

Dear Mr. Mills, City of Portland Ombudsman –

I had a distressing interaction this week while accessing public records at the Portland Water Bureau. You may have read about this incident in the Daily Journal of Commerce’s blog or on Jack’s Blog.

You can read my full accounting on my blog. I hope you will read the entire entry on my blog, as it was a complicated experience that unfolded over the course of 2 months and culminated with a surprising confrontation in a PWB conference room. The net is PWB had a staff person “supervise” me while I read two bid proposals and the corresponding evaluation sheets (clearly not records posing any security issues) and then charged me for that supervision. Which, in essence means they charged me for the time it took me to read the public records (2 hours = $55). I fully understand that PWB was within their rights to charge me for the staff time associated with supervision, but I take issue with their application of supervision.

This incident raises multiple questions, that need addressing to insure fair access to public records.

1) Are there objective perimeters established for the insistence of “supervised” reviews? In my case, I do not understand why PWB would pull a staff member off normal duties to watch me read the particular documents I was reading. They posed no security risk, and there was no danger that I could irreparably damage them. The application of “supervision” seems vulnerable to abuse, and could potentially be employed to undermine the public records access policy from which it is sourced. If a citizen can no longer read a public record without being charged by the minute for the time it takes her to sit and read it, then citizen access is in danger.

2) Are there guidelines for City staff to follow, outlining how Bureau staff should notify citizens when the records they seek will require a “supervised review”, and thus incur an hourly fee for reading time? In my case, I contend there was no notice that I was entering a “supervised” review. The bulk of the communication preceding my reading made no reference to any staff time other than that required to retrieve the records. The one email that indicated other staff time, mentioned only that a staff member would be assigned to “assist” my review, not “supervise” my review.

3) Is there a specified, predictable process by which custodians make decisions regarding fee waivers “in the public interest”? My constituents have long understood that non-profit organizations (particularly those offering the citizenry broad access to information), news organizations, and neighborhood associations (also typically offering information to the broader community) normally qualify for access fee waivers, with their “public interest” service being their ability to further disseminate information to a large number of citizens. However, my organization’s fee-waiver requests were all denied in the last 12 months. Additionally, the organization (Friends of the Reservoirs) that originated the records request associated with Monday’s incident has had most (if not all) of their fee waiver requests denied in 2009 and 2010. The sporadic blessing and denial of fee-waiver requests also appears vulnerable to abuse, potentially providing greater access to those organizations favored by Bureau managers and the Commissioners overseeing them, while potentially limiting access to those organizations that have fallen out of favor with management and elected officials.

I am not challenging the fact that Bureaus have a right to charge fees, that they have a right to supervise reviews, or that they have a right to deny fee-waiver requests. I mean to raise questions regarding the potential for abusing each of these measures, and how that abuse might harm citizen access to records.

Stephanie Stewart
MTNA Land Use Co-chair

Water Bureau doesn't want to give me access

I had a bizarre experience with the Water Bureau today. I’m still a little shocked by it all, not even sure where to begin.

The net is PWB just handed me a bill for $57.72 for 8 little copies. Copies I won’t get until I pay this bill, never mind the 2 hours I spent downtown today sitting in a PWB conference room reading through binders to find those 8 pages. But therein lies the rub = 2 hours. They had someone sit and watch me read the documents that whole time. I was “supervised”. Supervised while reading two bid proposals and some score sheets. All of what I had in front of me was public information, and none of it would appear to pose a security issue… so why was I supervised? I don’t know.

I’ve noticed it isn’t easy to get public information from the Water Bureau. No matter what Randy Leonard claims (on April 11, 2009 , Leonard stood in front of 175 people at Glenco Elementary and said that all anyone has to do is pick up the phone to get documents from PWB; two weeks later PWB instituted a formal request policy with fees). But this really takes the cake. The whole experience was, bizarre. Here is how it went:

• I was invited, by F. Jones of the Friends of the Reservoirs to accompany her on a visit to PWB to read some documents. Jones invited me because she thought it would be a good chance for me to see the PWB document library, as I may need to pull documents on behalf of MTNA someday. Jones had requested electronic copies of the documents in question (I’ve got something to say about this, later) and she was denied that request. She inquired about physical copies, and was told she’d be charged for staff time to pull and copy the documents ($171) and charged 25 cents each for the actual copies (# of pages undisclosed to her, but now that I’ve seen the material I can guess that the roughly 500 pages would have cost her upwards of $125). Jones made a plea for a fee waiver, a request based on the fact that her non-profit organization makes documents available to thousands of citizens. Request denied. So, Jones asked if she could just be given a chance to sit and read the documents down at PWB. They granted that request, a date was set, and I was invited.
• We were not put in the document library, we were put in a conference room with 3 small binders and a handful of loose papers, all related to the contract that was recently awarded for the design of the new tank at Powell Butte (Powell Butte II). Kristen Small escorted us into the room and then sat down. When Small left for a few minutes at one point, Jones and I wondered aloud why we were being watched, woefully unaware that PWB was charging us for Small’s time to “supervise” us. On previous occasions, citizens like Jones were allowed in the library, on their own, for whatever time they were willing to dedicate to being there.
• Within the first few minutes, Jones noticed she wasn’t given any of the names of the people on the panel that reviewed the bids for this contract. Jones had specifically requested the names of the people involved in the review panel/contract award process, so we asked Small if she could help Jones get that piece of information. Small was told by Mike Stuhr (head engineer) and Annette Dubishinsky that PWB was not authorized to disclose panel member identities, by city code. Jones corrected staff -- city code prohibits the disclosure of reviewer identities only until the point when the contract is awarded. The contract for Powell Butte II has already been signed. (Brownie points to Jones for being able to quote city code.) Shortly thereafter, Mike Stuhr appeared with the names. The seven panel members were as follows: 1) Jerry More, PWB; 2) Michael Angerinos, PWB, 3) Crystal Yezman, PWB, 4) Stan VandeBergh, PWB, 5) George Lozovoy, Parks Bureau, 6) Tamra Dickson, citizen, 7) Teresa Elliot, PWB. Notice that PWB does not seem to be following the City Auditor's report on consultant contracts, which advises against loading bid review panels with Bureau staff. (Update: I've posted the PTE Contract sheet that lists names and the money awarded with the contract.)
• I learned that the panel members saw 2 bids: one from CH2MHill for $5,586,884; the other from Tetra Tech for $8,683,882. That's a $3million difference, and the panel favored CH2MHill. But, before the contract was signed and presumably after the panel's review, CH2MHill raised their bid to $8,455,246.
• We read and read and read. When we finished, we asked for 8 pages to be copied, and we were told they’d be mailed. Our pages were only marked with these little sticky notes and I could imagine all sorts of mishaps that could occur between the conference room and the envelope that arrived at my door… what if a sticky fell off and they sent me one less page than what I’d hoped for, would I have to go all the way back downtown to find that page? “Can we just take the 8 copies now, I’ve got cash to cover the copy fee?” I pleaded. Small said she wasn’t “authorized” to give us copies, but she would see what she could do. TWENTY minutes later, we asked the front desk to check on Kristen. She reported that, “Kristen is furiously making those copies for you.” A total of 40 minutes later, Jimmy Brown approaches us with no copies. Instead he had a bill for $57.72 and a copy of the city policy on which he highlighted the passage that allows PWB to charge us for the “supervised” review.
• I asked Jimmy Brown if he would send me a written bill, itemizing the $2 worth of copies and the $55 worth of supervision. I didn’t think anyone would believe this story without proof. PWB is restricting access to public information to “supervised” visits only, at a rate of $27.86/hr. That’s right, if you want to see any of the documents I saw, you can’t have them electronically (even though the RFP specifically stated that all bids were to be supplied in multiples of 12 hard copies PLUS an electronic copy), and you’ll have to pay to even so much as breathe on them.
• If a citizen can't read a public record without being charged for the time it takes her to read the public record, citizen oversight is dead.

Update Jan 12
When I asked Jimmy Brown yesterday why we weren’t told at the start of the session that we’d be charged for the “supervision”, he replied something to the effect that the City policy was public information, and it wasn’t his fault if I hadn’t read it. I guess that’s true. I had read the policy, I just didn’t understand that the language could be leveraged to limit transparency.

I’ve now looked over the emails that led up to this misunderstanding. I think Mr. Brown could have been more clear.  Here is a chronological summary of the emails exchanged:

October 30, 2009
Jones made her request for:
“An electronic copy of all documents associated with the Ch2mHILL Powell Butte II reservoir design contract related to the selection committee and their ranking of the corporate proposals.”

November 5, 2009
Her request was acknowledged, and she was told it would cost $177, and that she would need to pay 50% up front.

Floy countered that she was looking for electronic copies, not paper copies. That the documents related to the panel selection committee should be in the 40 page range, not the 400 page range PWB was charging her for. She lobbied for a fee waiver based on FoR’s community information sharing mission, and she offered to make a site visit to read the documents.
November 6, 2009Brown responded to several people regarding Jones’ request, but failed to include Jones on that response. Brown detailed out the charges included in the PWB bill sent the day before. It reflects that Brown was also planning to copy and send the bids (roughly 300 pages), which Jones didn’t request. Brown asserted that the only way to get an electronic copy of the bids (which Jones didn’t ask to have) would be to pay PWB to scan them in (even though the RFP stated bids were to be supplied electronically).

Brown also wrote this: We would be willing to provide you the opportunity to come in and review the document(s) you've requested. Please note, per Public Records Policy there will be a charge for staff time associated with gathering the material. If there are pages that you would like to receive there will be a charge for a) scanning into a .pdf, and sending those documents electronically -- $.25/per page scanned; b) if copies of documents are made to give to you the charge is $.25/per copied page.
Note that Brown indicates there will be a charge for gathering the material for Jones to look at, but he does not say she will pay for the time it takes her to read it.

November 8, 2009
Jones presses again for a fee waiver. She also asks for an appointment to view the documents at PWB. Brown doesn’t respond for almost a month.

January 4, 2010
Brown responds with this:
Your request for a fee waiver has been denied.
…
The Bureau would like to afford you the opportunity to review the hard copy documents at its office, 1120 SW 5th, 6th Floor. In your review you may request that certain pages be duplicated. Bureau staff will make copies as requested, assessing a $.25 per page fee. Payment for copies must be received by staff prior to release.
The Bureau will make the hard copy documents available on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Please acknowledge via email that you are available on that date and time.

This would have been a good place for Brown to mention the fee for “supervision”. Note he only mentions the copy fee.

January 5, 2010
Floy counters with a new time, so that I can join = Monday, Jan 11 at the same time.

Brown responds with this:
Thank you for the confirmation. I will let folks know that you are available to review documents on January 11 at 1:30, not January 12 at 1:30. A PWB staff person will be assigned to assist you in the review process. Please meet at the 5th Floor, Portland Building and ask to speak with Kristen Small. We will provide a room for you to review the documents.

This is the first time anything is said that might indicate we were going to be babysat. But honestly, I didn’t understand that from Brown’s text.
January 11, 2010We show up. No one says anything about fees associated with Kristen Small’s “assistance”.

Here is the bill I was sent:The amount is: $57.72
A. sub-total: staff time (document retrieval/supervision) - $55.72
(2 hours X $27.86/hr.)

B. sub-total: copies of marked documents - $2.00
(8 copies X $.25/copy)

Behavior Unbefitting a City Bureau

An article on the front page of the latest NW Examiner (January 2010) -- discussing the Portland Water Bureau’s historically confrontational behavior towards citizen activists and how PWB has targeted Scott Fernandez and others: http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/01January2010.pdf