A Deeper Look At That Fischer/LMAS Coverup

By now, you probably know all about the latest Louisville Metro Animal Services scandal that Greg Fischer is involved in. You know he, the mayor, is ultimately responsible for this mess. Even though he’ll inevitably have a sacrificial lamb that he’ll use to throw to the media.

But if you don’t, here’s a nice refresher:

  • The LMAS Official-Turned-Fischer-Staffer Scandal Gets Real: Proof Margaret Brosko & Other Metro Officials Are Corrupt & Lack Any Compassion [July 22]
  • Transparency: Fischer Put His Foot In His Mouth [July 23]
  • This Louisville Scandal Impacts The Entire State [July 23]

The TL;DR: a head lady at LMAS was responsible for caring for a dog, she didn’t, she used money earmarked for the dog, lied about it, the dog suffered, was essentially tortured, abused, died, she retaliated against the folks who tried to help it, then she and the Fischer administration covered it up, worked to hide public records, lied about their existence and Fischer promoted the head LMAS lady to work for him in his office. It’s been one giant, horrible whitewash of epic proportions. Trust us — it’s worth reading everything so you can get caught up.

Despite there being clear evidence that everything we published was accurate and honest, the Fischer folks have claimed to other media outlets that we’ve fabricated information and made this story up in an attempt to harm him politically. We’re not sure why they can’t come up with better lies, as no one believes that one, Fischer has no credible political challenger, will never be anything more than mayor.

So we thought it’d be a good idea to drive the point about illegally withholding information from the public a bit further. Not only did Fischer’s folks hide documents and deny their existence, on many documents they illegally — in violation of KRS 61.878 — exercised blanket redaction of names in an attempt to further obscure and obfuscate.

And not for any credible reason. Not for any reason protected by law. In fact, for reasons that defy opinion OAG12-149 from Attorney General Jack Conway and the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

The excuse Metro Government’s Open Records Coordinator, Dee Allen, used? Let’s turn directly to Allen’s response:

However, if your protest centers on our redaction of the Louisville Metro Animal Service personnel names, then you are correct that we are indeed relying on preserving the public’s interest in the application of KRS 61.878(1)(a) by providing protection to the public employees which are believed to be in personal danger of retaliation or other harm if their identities are revealed.

-SNIP-

However, the most compelling reason for our continued protection of the individual names is literally to protect these public employees, who were performing their assigned duties in accordance with their employment, from possible harm.

You catch that? The Fischer Administration (his office reviews all Open Records Requests for Metro Animal Services before they’re sent out, as we’ve reported in the past) used the excuse that they had to redact Metro Government employee names to protect them from retaliation! And because they were in personal danger!

Minds. Blown.

Don’t believe it? See for yourself:


CLICK TO ENLARGE


CLICK TO ENLARGE


CLICK TO ENLARGE


CLICK TO ENLARGE


CLICK TO ENLARGE

We redacted names just to be jerks. The individual gave us permission to use her name. But why do that when we can prove a point?

As you can see for yourself, the Attorney General has already made clear that LMAS can only withhold a record if it can establish that the public’s interest in the release of the record is outweighed by an individual’s privacy interest. Jack Conway also makes explicitly clear what can and can not be used for justification. To that point, Conway has said:

[1] “[A] person’s name is personal but it is the least private thing about him . . . . The name of a person should not be deleted from a public record unless there is some special reason provided by statute or court order (i.e., adoption records).” OAG 82-234, at p. 3 (emphasis added); 07-ORD-199. See 98-ORD-123 (upholding the decision to release a witness report, including the name, but with home address and telephone number redacted under KRS 61.878(1)(a)).

No one in their right mind thinks the name of a government employee or veterinarian presents a privacy or safety concern in this case. No one. Not even the people using it as an excuse.

This wasn’t just an overreach of authority by the Fischer folks but a blatant attempt to withhold records from the public while covering up a gigantic scandal.

The point of this all: the Fischer crew can’t run or hide from this. It’s all on him. All on them. And the more his people come for me (Jake) personally and come for my business, impacting my ability to earn a living and eat for daring to report on scandals like this? The more motivated I am to hitch our wagons to him full-time.

If Dee Allen’s name sounds familiar, it is. Because she’s been involved in withholding LMAS information from the public for a number of years. After we raised concerns about a similar scandal at LMAS in late 2011, Allen used her husband to begin the retaliation against me. In July 2012, Allen had another fun redaction/whitewashing incident on her hands involving LMAS. A month later, yet another.

Transparency is not a thing with Greg Fischer. It’s just a fluffy buzzword he throws around. Same with compassion.

This is ridiculous.

UPDATE TIME!

For those of you wondering why Jack Conway didn’t resolve this? He threw things back to the County Attorney, who wrote:

LMAS Further continues to express its concerns over the release of the names of its employees as such release may cause possible retaliatory actions by Ms. REDACTED. Although the LMAS understands that the names of its public employees do not enjoy protection from public scrutiny, concerns have been raised as to possible risks of retaliation against LMAS and its employees by Ms. REDACTED upon the release of information identifying the public employees that cared for the dog in question

By retaliatory actions, they must have meant “possibility of blowing the top off this scandal” as we have just done.

7 thoughts on “A Deeper Look At That Fischer/LMAS Coverup

  1. Why doesn’t Fischer respond directly to the ‘Ville Voice? I don’t get it. Transparency and accessibility are his watchwords, so why not? Why go to other news outlets when the issue clearly cries out for a direct response?

  2. Because he is all photo op and no substance. Besides, Daddy and Jerry have not told him what to say.

  3. This mess sounds like something Edward Lee Logsdon MIGHT be involved in!
    He was an employee with the LMAS when this whole scandal began and has inside info. as to the inner workings of some of the underhanded things that the LMAS did to some of the animals…Not All good.
    This whole “Thing” sounds more like what is going on in Washington, D.C., with Our elected Politicians than something happening locally (Louisville) that COULD have possibly been solved from the beginning, by just supplying the names of the responsible parties!
    This whole situation is nothing more than just another pile of Political Horse Pucky!!

  4. Yabba Dabba: George’s boy can’t respond to Ville Voice because all he can say is — “You’re right, Jake, I ‘effed’ up so many time on this part of my administration that all I can say is “I’m sorry.” But I can’t fire Sadiqua because she wouldn’t have (and couldn’t get a job) and what’s a compassionate guy to do.”!!!!! [Heavens to Mergatroid — this is making me sick].

  5. He could can Brosko, Reynolds, et al and do what he did for all his other fires/resignations – get them jobs elsewhere by making calls. That’s what he’s done with nearly everyone he’s been forced to let go. (Not the people his folks have retaliated against, though, in LMEMS, Parks, Public Works and such)

  6. Interesting — so George’s Boy and his retinue retaliate against some people and not others — my how refreshing. I wonder if anyone in the bowels of this turd bowl has any understanding of the federal and Kentucky laws regarding employment and discharge discrimination (seems the Courier-Journal is getting the lesson now according to the reports in their news ‘wrap.’)

Comments are closed.