DAS misled about having SB5 documents

We posted an article a few weeks ago, concerned that the administration was hiding key facts from the public. We were also concerned that the SB5 analysis generated by the Department of Administrative Services was compromised and error ridden. We wrote to the DAS chief legal counsel

Can you provide me with a list of employees who provided the analysis and generated this report, a copy of all emails, spreadsheets, memos, and documents from said employees regarding this report.

We received the following response

I do not believe there is a list responsive to your request. The report came from the Office of Collective Bargaining.

Your request for emails, spreadsheets, memos, documents from "said" employees is vague and overbroad. Therefore, it is denied.
However, you are welcome to amend your request so that it is more specific.
Thank you,

Lisa Iannotta
Chief Legal Counsel
Department of Administrative Services
30 E. Broad Street, 40th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 728-3475 Direct Dial

Well it turns out that was a lie. Not only is the Office of Collective Bargaining part of DAS, but Plunderbund now has in its possession the proof. What they have more than explains the reluctance of the administration to turn over documents relating to their flawed SB5 analysis

From: Duco, Michael
To: Blair, Robert; Menedis, Nicholas; Wykoff, Pieter
Cc: Trackler, Julie; Colson, Harry
Subject: Columbus
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:20:31 AM

I left a message for Jan Campbell for the same information that I asked Toledo for. I am not sure that they will cooperate. I am walking over to SERB to see what kind of data they may have. I know that you want an aggregate number but there may be no way to give you it with any amount of precision.

Maybe what they should do is show what the savings to the State, a city (Toledo) and a school district and a county. If you all provide me with a school district that would work with us and a county we can work on these snapshots. While an aggregate number is big I am worried that it will be challenged and we will not be able to defend. My only solution is to use the savings garnered in Toledo and the state divided by the number of employees to come up with an average savings multiple that by the number of public employees and use a factor of 5% either way. I chose 5% because the elimination of five sick days is approximately 2% savings which Toledo and State workforce would not capture and say 3% for potential pick up coverage. Let me know your ideas or whether you think this formula is defensible.

A number of the people cc'ed in this single email work for DAS and were involved in some manner in the creation of the SB5 analysis that we know some had reservations about. The administration is getting dangerously close to serious lawsuits with their constant disregard for public records law.