All the CCA documents VLCIA provided in response to Matt Flumerfelt’s Open Records Request
are
on the LAKE website.
I will continue posting what I see in them (in the category
CCA), but you may find things in them I don’t.
If you find something particularly interesting, please send it to the
LAKE blog submission address or comment on the blog so we can all see it.
-jsq
According to “SCHEDULE 1.6.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE” CCA was supposed to provide to VLCIA
CCA did provide a Title Objection Letter 19 November 2010, and that was due “within 30 days of receipt of the Survey”. So these Preliminary Specifications were due about six months ago. Let’s see them!Submission of Preliminary Specifications (Section 1.6.1)
No later than 6 months after receipt of the Survey
If those specifications have not been received by VLCIA, maybe the contract with CCA is no longer valid.
Or maybe VLCIA already received the NTP and is moving on with implementing the project. Seems to me the community should be informed, one way or the other.
-jsq
CCA has already paid for two extensions on their Option Agreement
for land purchase.
The
Second Extension Term
was paid for in March 2010
and forwarded to the land owner.
Here’s video of
Col. Ricketts announcing it to
the VLCIA board 15 March 2011.
That second extension expires 13 March 2012, six weeks from today.
A Third Extension Term is possible, but has to be negotiated. Here’s what Purchase and Development Agreement of 17 August 201 says:
1.4.2.3. Third Extension Term. The Authority shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain an option for a third extension term of twelve (12) months (the “Third Extension Term“). In the event the Authority is able to obtain such extension option on terms and conditions such that any required earnest money to be paid by the Company in connection with the exercise of such extension option does not exceed $75,000, and there is no increase of the price of the Site or any other payments not already required by the Option Agreement, then the Authority shall enter into a written agreement (the “Third Extension Term“) with the Seller reflecting the terms and conditions of such extension option….What happens if the Authority does not provide such an extension option? Continue reading
That agreement includes this legal boilerplate:
There’s nothing in there that says VLCIA can’t even say in their board meetings that Project Excel is a private prison for CCA. And outside board meetings, some board members have no reluctance to acknowledge that.it will use any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information to which it has access solely for the purpose set forth herein and that it will indefinitely protect the confidentiality of such information and will not directly or indirectly disclose, reproduce, distribute, transmit or transfer by any means in any form any confidential documents, information and/or trade secrets that AUTHORITY may have or acquire during the Evaluation Period.
Confidentiality agreements like that are normal between two business entities. They seem a little odd between a business entity and a governmental agency. For example, that Agreement continues:
For purposes of this Agreement, “confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information” includes, but is not limited to, marketing materials, conceptual site drawings and images, form contract agreements, the identities of business contacts and the relationships developed with such contacts during the Evaluation Period, proposed terms of purchase and sale, if any….Yet many of those things are by their nature public records that VLCIA is required to hand over in response to an open records request, such as the one Matt Flumerfelt made which produced documents such as these: Continue reading
That survey plat was included in EXCEL (CCA) Title-Survey Objections (Reno-Cavanaugh) of 19 November 2010. That’s one of a group of files returned by VLCIA in response to an open records request by Matt Flumerfelt.
We now have some idea of what the prison would look like, due to this plan: Continue reading
Knoxville News editorial of 14 March 2010, Chalk two up for open government
So eventually CCA will have to surrender at least some of the records, although there is still haggling in court over which exceptions CCA can use for which records. (And there’s always the old “we didn’t keep them that long” trick.)CAA[sic] maintained it wasn’t the functional equivalent of a government agency, but the Appeals Court rejected that claim and the Supreme Court refused even to hear it.
“With all due respect to CAA[sic],” Appeals Court Judge D. Michael Swiney wrote in his opinion on Friedman’s case, “this Court is at a loss as to how operating a state prison could be considered anything less than a governmental function.”
The Tennessee Supreme Court had already ruled about government contractors:
“When a private entity’s relationship with the government is so extensive that the entity serves as the functional equivalent of a governmental agency, the accountability created by public oversight should be preserved.”I wonder if Georgia will accept a Tennessee precedent?
-jsq
The first person I saw going into the
State Legislative Luncheon
yesterday was Andrea Schruijer,
Executive Director of the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority (VLCIA).
She spotted me inside, and said “I want to apologize”.
Surprised, I asked for what?
She said for
the date of VLCIA’s Tuesday meeting being unclear.
She said she had read about that in this blog that same morning.
She said they had recently changed the way they were handling their web pages and hadn’t yet figured out how to update it correctly. Since I was never very impressed with how it was handled before, I readily accepted that as a good excuse. I look forward to the updates. I’m guessing the new PR and marketing person they’re hiring will take care of this.
She also volunteered that they did inform the VDT and it was in the VDT’s calendar. I agreed that that was so; we had checked, and it appears the meeting was legal because of those notices.
She also said she thought she had said Monday evening, “see you tomorrow.” I allowed as how if she did, I missed it.
In any case, I have to say that her predecessor would never have made
that much effort to make amends to a mere blogger.
Once again,
tiny LAKE is flattered by mighty VLCIA,
although in a more positive way this time.
Congratulations on the new industries announced at VLCIA’s Tuesday meeting. Maybe more about those later.
Here’s looking forward to the Strategic Planning Process announced at that same meeting as coming up early next year.
-jsq
own web page and they didn’t post an agenda.
Also, I saw both VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer
and their Chairman Roy Copeland speak Monday night, and neither
of them said a word about their meeting date being changed to the
next night.
Here’s some irony in the VDT’s story:
Schruijer also discussed the Authority’s plans to move ahead with theWhy ever would people think that?The intention, according to Schruijer and Copeland, is to include community partners in the process as the assessment showed that many in the community think that the various entities work at odds with each other, rather than on the same page, when it comes to economic development.
According to VLCIA’s website: Continue reading
Continuing the
Comprehensive Plan Short Term Work Program (STWP) updates,
the chairman asked if the board was ready
Lowndes County Planner Jason Davenport responded:
We’re not done working on this. But if you think it’s time to bring it before y’all.
Later, at about 11:40 in, Davenport clarified:
And the only that’s different right now is Lowndes County. Because Lowndes County did not hold a public hearing as required, so we’re on a different timeline. And if Mrs. Quarterman would have given me about until December 13th she would have seen that.That would be the initial resolution the countyBecause our initial resolution was not the same as the other communities. We’re on a little bit of a different timeline because we have to address that issue. That’s one thing; the county in this instance will be handled a little different than some of the smaller cities and Valdosta.
did not provide in response to an open records request about the draft
the county did not publish as
required by the state.
If the county had answered questions weeks ago,
instead of waiting until they had to do makeup homework,
nobody would have had to ask about it at that GLPC meeting….
Anyway, the County Planner has said there will be a public hearing. However, remember it was the County Chairman who said that the public hearing item on the agenda was not really a public hearing. It’s the Chairman, not the Planner, who sets the agendas for the County Commission. We’ll see what’s on the 13th December County Commission Agenda, and whether it really is handled as a public hearing in that meeting.
Then GLPC Board Member John Page expressed his concerns: Continue reading
I repeatedly apologized to County Planner Jason Davenport
about an earlier misunderstanding about the
“public hearing” agenda item, which the Chairman stated was not really
a public hearing and for which no citizens were allowed to speak:
7.b. Greater Lowndes 2030 Comprehensive Plan Updates – Lowndes County Report of Accomplishments (ROA) and Short Term Work Program (STWP)Then I said:
Transparent government is totally what my heart is about. And I think that people trust the government more when we can see the business done in public. And I really appreciate when you do things in public and you ask questions in the work sessions so everybody can hear.The VDT’s version was:
The lone citizen to be heard, Gretchen Quarterman, thanked commissioners for their observance of open government and apologized to County Planner Jason Davenport for things she said to him prior to the meeting, due to a “misunderstanding,” she said.
After the meeting adjourned, Chairman Ashley Paulk apologized to me in public Continue reading