Upon what basis can you claim that the city’s intention here is to make access more difficult? I assume this is simply your varnished assumption rather than a statement of fact. This new process saves us money as taxpayers. The audio recordings are accessible if one so chooses to access and transcribe the calls on his or her own. How does this process lack transparency? The information is available, just in a different, more cost effective format. Indeed, access to a recording of the caller’s voice is probably as unvarnished as it gets, and probably gives a lot more nuance than is available in a written format. Moreover, the exceptions you refer to applied to the transcripts as well as the recordings, as I’m sure you are aware.

You and your readers complain incessantly about wasteful city spending, except, apparently, when continued unnecessary city spending suits your purposes. It is precisely this type of double standard that calls into question the credibility of this blog. Since you varnish every single decision coming out of City Hall with unsupported impure motives, how can any intelligent reader give credence to a single word you write?

I’m no insider, just another interested concerned citizen who prefers unvarnished, unbiased reporting rather than knee-jerk, often self-serving reactions such as those frequently posted here.

Another promise BROKEN!

No surprise – business as usual Mr. Mayor. Very very sad.

EDITOR NOTE– Not for me. For all the city councilors, media, and citizens who seek the “unvarnished” version. The transcription process came long before the advent of the GUARDIAN. As an insider, you certainly know the intent of offering the audio version–with “numerous exemptions”– is INTENDED to make it difficult. We would no longer be able to redact phone numbers and addresses as we do in consideration of callers.

As a writer, you could surely transcribe those calls yourself and provide them here, for the benefit of your readers. How ironic (and hypocritical?) that you think the City should do this for you.

EDITOR NOTE–Transcription came along way prior to the GUARDIAN. You know the GUARDIAN is one of many who receive the report, including councilors, department heads, and all the rest of the media. Perhaps some of that $60,000 for the PR firm could go toward transparency.

EDITOR NOTE–Great Idea! We do a lot of “hotline” work already fielding messages via e-mail from readers who are stonewalled by the city. For the most part city department heads–with some exceptions–do a great job and respond well to citizen complaints filtered through the GUARDIAN.

I would encourage fellow Guardian readers to do the same! This is bogus!

As far as “Some of our past favorites” it would be great if you had some HTML links to them.