The following is a copy of
City Clerk Pavlik’s "complaint" about his approval of my
request for a list of Berwyn pet licensees. The
indented text in gold font are my comments.
I know these individuals well
enough to be able to tell you that I can visualize them all
sitting around Chapman's kitchen working on this masterpiece
with the city clerk.
The comments in silver font are Clerk
Pavlik's.
The comments in gold font are mine.
If you would like to read a copy of the Clerk's "complaint"
without my comments,
CLICK HERE.
April 4, 2008
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It has come to my attention
that Alderman Erickson requested pet owner’s information
from the City Collectors office.
Actually it had
come to his
attention 9 weeks earlier (January 28, 2008)
when he
approved the
request.
His approval was neither required nor
requested, yet he, in fact, did approve it.
This request was brought to
my attention as the Freedom of Information Officer of the
City as to the need to file a FOIA request.
Again it had come to his attention 9 weeks earlier earlier (January 28,
2008) when he
approved the
request.
It is my contention that an
elected official should have information made available
without the need to be under the umbrella of the Freedom of
Information Act.
However, the information
requested is public knowledge; it would never be released in
an un-redacted form.
In fact, this is exactly how he released the information.
Further, it is my contention
that what the information is requested for and how the
information is used, remains a different story.
Since when is it anyone's business how a citizen uses
public
information?
There are no legally imposed limitations.
The Berwyn City Clerk apparently believes that he may, in
his discretion,
abridge the first amendment rights of a citizen.
Alderman Erickson used this
information to create a mailing list to send out a political
party newsletter addressed to the animal of each resident
(see attached).
First of all NO ONE, including the
City Clerk, has been able to identify
anything political in the Newsletter to which the City Clerk
refers. The
newsletter is available on the internet. Please review
that newsletter
and advise me how the newsletter is political.
Click Here
Perhaps the City Clerk is referring to an
informational flyer about BRIC.
BRIC is not a political party. Identity of political
parties is available
from
the Board of Elections. Had he done a nominal amount of
investigation
he
would have discovered that fact.
To learn more about BRIC,
click here.
This is somewhat ironic when one realizes that Mr. Pavlik
has, in fact,
campaigned for and has been an apologist for Robert Lovero
and Sonny
Stillo from his City Clerk's office at City Hall.
Furthermore, none of the animals to whom the newsletter was
addressed were registered voters. (smile)
I believe this possibly
violates Ordinance 209.02(a) and clearly falls into
definitions as described in 209.01.
He
believes it "possibly" and "clearly".
Possibly clear means "unclear".
In fact the definitions to which he refers describe activity
and not
violations. None of the "prohibited activity" includes
addressing a
newsletter to a pet.
Once again, with the lack of
an Ethics Commission, it would be my recommendation to refer
this matter to the Administration Committee for further
investigation, along with a full audit of his expense
account.
Mr. Pavlik's sudden interest in an Ethics Commission is
encouraging.
Once appointed, I'll have a number of items to refer to the
Ethics
Commission.
It would be my recommendation
for that committee to forward this matter, along with their
findings to the Illinois Attorney Generals Office, Cook
County States Attorney, State and County Board of Elections
and U.S. Post Master General for investigation and potential
criminal charges.
I have already
contacted all of these law enforcement agencies to
report Mr. Pavlik's conduct along with the conduct of Aldermen
Chapman, Lovero and Skryd.
I would be
happy to refer this matter to the Postmaster General, but
I
am not sure what to request. Perhaps Mr. Pavlik would
be willing to
advise me as to how we can get the Postmaster General
involved in this
matter.
In
fairness to and in the interest
of assisting law enforcement
personnel, I would appreciate it if Mr. Pavlik would itemize the State
and Federal laws which
he imagines I
have violated and any action
which triggered a
violation of each law.
My Questions For The Administration Committee
-
What are the charges which emerge from the Clerk's
"complaint"?
In order for you to formulate relevant questions in your
inquiry of
this matter, we all need to understand exactly what the
Clerk is
alleging.
-
Please identify the portions of the newsletter to which the
Clerk is
referring and please be specific.
I have received a series of questions from you which, while I have
no problem answering them in casual conversation,
appear to be
disconnected and irrelevant to anything contained in the
Clerk's
"complaint". Please explain their
relevance to the charge, whatever
it might be.
-
In the interest of assisting law enforcement personnel,
please specify
and
itemize the State and Federal laws including the postal laws which
the Clerk alleges have been violated.
-
Please provide me with an understanding as to why the Clerk is
complaining on April 4, 2008 about something he approved on
January
28, 2008?
I anxiously await your clarifications.
Joel Erickson
