Connect with us:   Subscribe to the paper  |   View the mobile edition  |   Get daily e-mail news  |   Get mobile alerts  |   Share your photos  |   Report news  |   Place an ad  |   Contact us


Mount P. council members at odds over Brock lawsuit

The Post and Courier
Tuesday, July 15, 2008


— Councilman Gary Santos' suggestion that the town settle a suit brought by Planning Commission member Steve Brock alleging Council violations of the state Freedom of Information Act is "bizarre," Town Councilman Joe Bustos said.

"It may be prudent to settle this lawsuit and save the taxpayers a substantial amount of money," Santos said in a July 9 e-mail to Council members. "My comments were only put forward because of the cost of this litigation," Santos said Tuesday. He noted that the town is facing "tremendous budget cuts."

In his e-mail, Santos raised the issue of settling Brock's FOIA lawsuit in part because of the expense of providing copies of tapes of Council meetings and Council committee meeting to Brock's attorney, Thomas Tisdale. According to an internal memo dated July 8, the cost of providing copies of 250 meeting tapes was $10,750. However, Town Attorney Allen Young said Tuesday that the cost of providing the meeting tape copies will be a maximum of $5,000. "I'm reviewing that with the other side," he said.

Brock had no comment Tuesday. His suit asks a judge to rule that Council has violated the Act, and to issue an injunction to prevent future violations. It also asks that the town pay his attorney fees. The town's response on July 10 denies the allegations of FOIA violations and asks that Brock's suit be dismissed.

"I just thought it was really bizarre that one of our Council members would come out.... saying that we ought to settle this thing," Bustos said Tuesday. "I asked him (Santos) if he felt I had violated the FOIA. He chose to be quiet," Bustos said.

Read more in tomorrow's editions of The Post and Courier




Article tools




Latest local stories





Sponsored Links


Notice about comments:
Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Comments

This article has  0 comment(s)


(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

Search Charleston.Net Archives for Latest News


Charleston.Net Customer Care | Subscribe to Paper, Register for email news updates, manage your online account, place a classified ad, or contact us




Charleston.net logo

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of service, Privacy policy and our Parental consent form. (Updated 2/9/2007)