The city claims it doesn't have an opinion whether a key document in the Spiegel controversy is a public record, but it opposes a group that says it is.
I'm jumping in in the middle of the movie here, but it sounds like the city is going a little CYA in case Spiegel sues them? Maybe some out or court settlement negotiations are in the works? And I suppose if the insurance carrier covers the settlement they'll try not to make that public too. This double talk just kind of makes me wonder if there's an undisclosed back story here. And maybe the city's opposing the intervention of third parties without trying to take a position on the document being a public record. Kinda like "butt out, we'll take care of this." Which is a little high handed unless the bottom line is just cover the city's exposure here, legally as well as publicly.
Thanks, Ed. I apologize for missing the Quad Cities Congressional reception this evening. If I had more energy I would have loved to harangue any local elected officials who might be in town.
I'm confident the information will be released. There's a system in place for just such things.
Thanks, Mike
I'm jumping in in the middle of the movie here, but it sounds like the city is going a little CYA in case Spiegel sues them? Maybe some out or court settlement negotiations are in the works? And I suppose if the insurance carrier covers the settlement they'll try not to make that public too. This double talk just kind of makes me wonder if there's an undisclosed back story here. And maybe the city's opposing the intervention of third parties without trying to take a position on the document being a public record. Kinda like "butt out, we'll take care of this." Which is a little high handed unless the bottom line is just cover the city's exposure here, legally as well as publicly.
Thanks, Ed. I apologize for missing the Quad Cities Congressional reception this evening. If I had more energy I would have loved to harangue any local elected officials who might be in town.