“Questions remain after Reeves’ explanations,” is the headline for the paper’s latest news report, published today. There is an accompanying editorial. “[T]he city of Cambridge is prolonging a farce by not making Ken Reeves explain how he is spending your tax dollars,” the editors write. The also assert, without substantiation, that Cambridge doubled the Mayor’s travel budget this year to cover past expenses, rather than to provide for future charges, as the City Manager has said.
The Chronicle should be applauded for aggressive pursuit of this issue. It is outrageous that Reeves and the City failed to provide documentation for these expenses for weeks after the paper’s request, considering the travails the Mayor had last time he was in office.
On the other hand, the facts so far show that the Chronicle was wrong about how much Reeves has spent to date. It also does not seem unreasonable to me that a newspaper should have to pay a fee of $167 for access to detailed expense receipts. More to the point, the law agrees. As the newspaper itself reported:
Nancy Glowa, deputy city solicitor, explained that public record payments are usually based on the salary of the lowest paid city employee who would be qualified to do the work. The money requested would have been deposited into a general fund, not to Reeves himself, according to city policy. “The city has the right to ask the requestor the reasonable estimated cost of the lowest paid person searching for segregating a copy of the requested records,” said Glowa. “The city is allowed to request in advance of the work being performed.”
The Chronicle still has some questions. “There is also no list of who the seven people were who enjoyed a taxpayer-funded dinner with Reeves at Accapella in Tribeca for $521. Nor do we know why he spent $90.54 for lunch at the Hyatt in Rochester, again at taxpayers’ expense.” Let the accounting continue.
