After reading? today's editorial ''Clarity for Queen Mary'' ? --? I would like to make some clarifications of my own? regarding my lawsuit. First, Darwin Thorpe and Don May have been added to the lawsuit as plantiffs. Second , I am pressing the City for documents that I feel are responsive to California Public Records Act requests that I have made since January 2002 and the city has not provided those records. My lawsuit notes following documents have yet to be produced by the City of Long Beach:
?• Audit conducted by Earl Hobbs in 2000 concerning the Queen Mary rent credits;
?• Notice of default issued to QSDI by City Attorney Robert Shannon;
?• All financial audits of Queen Mary operations conducted by Gary Burroughs and/or Bob Torrez;
?• All correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS regarding Queen Mary lease and operations;
?• Supporting documentation from QSDI/RMS for rent credits claimed by QSDI/RMS;
?• Correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS relating to conduit financing approved by the City Council in spring 2002 which never commenced;
?• Correspondence between the City and QDSI and RMS related to a proposed November 2002 lease amendment related to rent credits;
?• Correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS relating to conduit financing approved by the City Council in spring 2003 which never commenced;
?• Notice received by the City of Long Beach and/or any other documentation related to the sale, transfer or other change/dispositions among shareholders of QSDI and/or RMS Foundation Inc., or subsidiary shareholders related to the operation of the Queen Mary and the adjacent waterfront properties and notification requirements for change in shareholder interests;
?• All documents submitted to the Staubach Company by the City.
?
I believe the? City has been so slow to hold QSDI and RMS accountable for monies owed to it; and the City has failed to produce pertinent documents I have requested in compliance with state open records laws. I also believe? that the City has its own (currently unknown) reasons for having so long failed to conduct an audit of QSDI and for failing to comply with my Public Records Act requests.? ? Moreover, based upon? the items listed above that I have yet to receive, it appears? to me that the City would prefer to keep the matters alleged herein secret and withheld from the public.
I filed this lawsuit because I believe in open and transparent government.? Quite frankly and truthfully, this lawsuit should have been filed by the Press Telegram instead of a housewife? to follow the truth no matter where the truth may lead. In my opinion, your editorials on the Queen Mary? have? not taken the ''watchdog'' approach in reference to the California Public Records Act.? Gary Burroughs is our independently elected City Auditor, who should regularly produce audits and reports on the performance of the Queen Mary and monitor lease compliance. If the? City Auditor's office? is unable to provide supporting documentation for rent credits he authorized for the Queen Mary operator for $2-3.7 million dollars -- ? then? I think? he is not qualified to run the office of City Auditor.?
?
It is my hope that the PT editorial board would lead the charge in? holding ALL elected officials accountable WHILE demanding that public documents like past audits? and correspondence be made immediately available for public inspection.? Yes, the consultants and City Auditor's office will be soon releasing information -- but? both are reaction to litigation -- not ongoing responsible management and oversight.? ? Coverage to date has? depicted? high-paid city management staff and elected officials as shrugging their shoulders, pointing the finger at each other and saying ''I dunno'' about? public records and? what? appears to be some of the most serious aspects of? the Queen Mary operation and the management of its lease.
?
By Traci Wilson-Kleekamp
?• Audit conducted by Earl Hobbs in 2000 concerning the Queen Mary rent credits;
?• Notice of default issued to QSDI by City Attorney Robert Shannon;
?• All financial audits of Queen Mary operations conducted by Gary Burroughs and/or Bob Torrez;
?• All correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS regarding Queen Mary lease and operations;
?• Supporting documentation from QSDI/RMS for rent credits claimed by QSDI/RMS;
?• Correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS relating to conduit financing approved by the City Council in spring 2002 which never commenced;
?• Correspondence between the City and QDSI and RMS related to a proposed November 2002 lease amendment related to rent credits;
?• Correspondence between the City and QSDI/RMS relating to conduit financing approved by the City Council in spring 2003 which never commenced;
?• Notice received by the City of Long Beach and/or any other documentation related to the sale, transfer or other change/dispositions among shareholders of QSDI and/or RMS Foundation Inc., or subsidiary shareholders related to the operation of the Queen Mary and the adjacent waterfront properties and notification requirements for change in shareholder interests;
?• All documents submitted to the Staubach Company by the City.
?
I believe the? City has been so slow to hold QSDI and RMS accountable for monies owed to it; and the City has failed to produce pertinent documents I have requested in compliance with state open records laws. I also believe? that the City has its own (currently unknown) reasons for having so long failed to conduct an audit of QSDI and for failing to comply with my Public Records Act requests.? ? Moreover, based upon? the items listed above that I have yet to receive, it appears? to me that the City would prefer to keep the matters alleged herein secret and withheld from the public.
I filed this lawsuit because I believe in open and transparent government.? Quite frankly and truthfully, this lawsuit should have been filed by the Press Telegram instead of a housewife? to follow the truth no matter where the truth may lead. In my opinion, your editorials on the Queen Mary? have? not taken the ''watchdog'' approach in reference to the California Public Records Act.? Gary Burroughs is our independently elected City Auditor, who should regularly produce audits and reports on the performance of the Queen Mary and monitor lease compliance. If the? City Auditor's office? is unable to provide supporting documentation for rent credits he authorized for the Queen Mary operator for $2-3.7 million dollars -- ? then? I think? he is not qualified to run the office of City Auditor.?
?
It is my hope that the PT editorial board would lead the charge in? holding ALL elected officials accountable WHILE demanding that public documents like past audits? and correspondence be made immediately available for public inspection.? Yes, the consultants and City Auditor's office will be soon releasing information -- but? both are reaction to litigation -- not ongoing responsible management and oversight.? ? Coverage to date has? depicted? high-paid city management staff and elected officials as shrugging their shoulders, pointing the finger at each other and saying ''I dunno'' about? public records and? what? appears to be some of the most serious aspects of? the Queen Mary operation and the management of its lease.
?
By Traci Wilson-Kleekamp
