"The audit report is done, but because the county considers it a draft until commissioners are allowed to give their input, the redactions in the report that has been released are so heavy that even the title of the report is partially blacked out."

I don't understand the problem with this request for the Planning Audit which has been completed. Couldn't the Audit Report be released in full now, and the county response to the report be released later?

http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2010/01/29/local_news/doc4b632ea4163a9910371198.txt

[quote=Brit]I don't understand the problem with this request for the Planning Audit which has been completed. Couldn't the Audit Report be released in full now, and the county response to the report be released later? [quote]

In a word: "yes." The only reason I can see for all of the redactions would be that whoever reviewed the draft prior to releasing it to the media believes that the redacted sections will be later deleted or substantially edited by the county commissioners.

This is where the political ineptitude of the county commissioners truly astounds me.

Guys, this is Grays Harbor you're in. There cannot be anything in that report so utterly inflammatory that it will cause less of a stir among the yahoos than blacking out page after page of the report.

Even if the full report is released now, the yahoos will claim it has been edited, rewritten, or something else, in order to hide something that would have the citizenry storming the commission offices with pitchforks and torches.

On this one, county commissioners, you get an Epic Fail.

You're being polite. The commissioners' stupidity is astounding, not to mention the incompetence of their legal advisers.

Ditto

I'd like to think the report could not be edited or changed by the commissioners, thus it is not a draft. The drafting was done before the report was submitted. The commissioners may not agree with the findings or may have some comments or clarifications, but those would be in response to the report. Perhaps they'll take a second look at this situation and now release the report in full which cost the taxpayers $20,000.

I agree. If they edit or delete sections from the report it will lose any semblance of objectivity which would defeat the whole purpose of paying for an independent review. Adding the comments of the commissioners is one thing, changing the report is quite another.

Thank you Brit for pointing out the taxpayers paid for this "report".
We deserve to know what was written.

I couldn't agree more with Beavis and the above comments on this.

Man, who sends out a report like that to the newspaper? It's not national security. Well that's one way to turn a potential yawn-fest policy review into a full-fledged scandal/conspiracy/coverup. Incredible blunder, unless the report contains potentially actionable material since it reviewed a number of large development permitting processes. Hmmmm. There, see. The conspiracy theories begin. Circle the wagons, send in the attorneys, blame the newspaper for requesting public information, never finalize the "draft," and throw it on a shelf. Ouch.

Of course if this was just a power play pissing match with the newspaper ... that almost makes it worse.

Well, it could be worse you know. I've got Tim Sheldon as my commissioner, and my senator. Double the pleasure, double the fun.