Here’s the press release in response to this story that the Journal Star broke yesterday:

Date: February 21, 2008
Released by: Alma Brown, Communications Manager, 494-8554
Subject: RELEASE OF PERSONAL DATA

The City of Peoria sincerely regrets the release of some employees’ personal information. Once this error was discovered, our Human Resources Department took immediate steps to retrieve the information released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. Despite several attempts, and the recopying of the response with all personal information deleted, the documents have not been returned to the City. We continue to explore every constructive approach possible for the return of the information released in error.

The ransomware definition says that is a type of malware(malicious software that involves holding the victim’s information at ransom.

Employees who have been impacted by the release have been notified by the City of Peoria Legal Department. This notification permits employees to take any steps they believe appropriate with regard to their personal information.

Additional safeguards have been instituted to ensure that this situation does not repeat itself. The City of Peoria values all of its employees and their dedication to public service. We will remain conscientious in our efforts to provide a safe and secure working environment.

Any questions should be directed to Kimberly King, Senior Staff Attorney/Acting Human Resources Director at (309) 494-8590.

Here’s the “he-said-she-said” part of the press release: “Despite several attempts, and the recopying of the response with all personal information deleted, the documents have not been returned to the City.” The person who has the information simply filed a Freedom of Information Act request to support her claim that she should get her tuition reimbursed. The city messed up by giving her too much information. In the Journal Star article today, she says:

“I took out student loans that I expected I would be paying back with my tuition reimbursement (from the city). Now, here I am, a single mom with two kids and thousands of dollars in unpaid student loans,” she said Wednesday.

Though she never asked for the personal information, doesn’t want it and even took pains to let the city know they mistakenly released it, she hasn’t returned it yet because some of it is on the same pages with the information she needs to defend her case. That case, she adds, is stalled for some reason.

Once it’s resolved, she said she will happily return everything.

So the city says they gave her the info with all the confidential personal info redacted, but she says she doesn’t have all the info needed to defend her case. So… looks like the city is in a pickle, and they’re trying to redirect anger from their screw-up to this woman who wants to get her tuition reimbursed.

I don’t know who’s right, but I do know that it wouldn’t be an issue if the city hadn’t messed up and given out personal data. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I hope we don’t get very much more wintery weather this, um, winter:

Update as of 8:00 a.m.: City crews are salting primary streets, and secondary intersections. Once plowing operations begin, salting will be limited to major intersections, bridges, and hills. [emphasis mine] Salt supplies in our area are running low, therefore, we need to limit our use of salt at this time. Crews will maintain driving lanes on primary streets by plowing until the snow ends. Snow fall will become heavy during the morning, and afternoon. We can expect traffic delays during evening rush. Please use caution while driving, and reduce speeds.

At-large city councilman Gary Sandberg recently left a comment on another post explaining why this situation has occurred. Since readers may have missed it, I’m reprinting it here (with spelling corrections):

1. The City of Peoria and the County purchases it’s road salt through a state purchase contract. The salt purchase is bulk “salt” delivered to a location. As such, each unit of government must state how much salt will be committed to purchasing by that unit of government. The amount is hopefully based on past usage as well as any forecasts for salt based on expected weather conditions (and we know how accurate weather forecaster can be), amount of money budgeted for purchase, and to a lesser degree anticipated salt availability (no anticipated problems were anticipated because of production, delivery, labor situations, etc.)

2. The unit of government is then REQUIRED to purchase 80% of the total quantity of salt the unit said they would purchase. The supplier also guarantees delivery and price for up to 150% of the quantities the unit of government said they were committed to.

As can be seen, these two limits 80% has to be purchased regardless of need and the 150% maximum guarantee of price and availability balances the unit from stating artificially high amounts and then NOT PURCHASING because of lack of need and leaving the overstocking of salt in the hands of the supplier and perhaps then useless overtime or until the next salt season. The 150% provides the guarantee that if the units don’t want to eat excess salt purchased because of the 80% rule OR because of unanticipated weather conditions or need for salt usage that units will have access to more than the unit committed to purchase.

As of around the 27th of January, the averages usage of road salt purchased through the State of Illinois in this area was at 138% OVERALL. As such, two dynamics start taking place, first whether the supplier can keep up with demand physically, and then the dynamics of the price changing. (How many out there realize that Peoria is the northern most point where salt comes “UP” the river for delivery? The Salt for Chicago as was mentioned is delivered through the Great Lakes. Duh, think about dynamics of delivery costs between those two choices.)

I used the average usage at 138% to recognize that it encompasses all the units of government locally that uses the state supplier and some may be higher in usage and other lower, but clearly the ceiling for guaranteed delivery and pricing was much closer than the minimum purchase.

As such in the City of Peoria the Administration made an informed decision based on anticipated warming weather conditions to use less salt as the City, as well as all local units of government approaches the upper limits of their respective purchase contracts. Will they be correct can only be determined in the coming 6-8 weeks when snow/ice conditions may be present? If the City does not need one more tablespoon of salt during this season, all the naysayers and conspiracists can blame the City for this past week’s decision. If on the other hand, the City has 2 or 3 weather incidents or perhaps just 1 “big one” in the intervening 6-8, the Administration made the correct decision. I suppose for some, the Administration should have known about the 7 previous needs for salt usage this season plus the remaining incidents and just committed to ordering more.

Bet you never knew buying salt was so complicated, did you? I certainly didn’t. I wonder how much extra it’s going to cost the city if they have to buy more salt at a premium price in order to keep our roads safe. And, when will they decide to order more salt instead of conserving by only salting selected intersections, bridges, and hills.

UPDATE: The Journal Star answered my question. “To combat the problem, the Peoria City Council will be asked to approve a contract for about $212,000 to purchase more salt.”

UPDATE 2: I’ve just been forwarded a copy of an e-mail written by Public Works Director Dave Barber explaining the salt situation:

As I mentioned this morning we need to take action to secure a new supply of road salt for the remainder of this winter. We contracted through the Illinois Department of Management Services for Road Salt with a contract amount of 8,000 tons. The price for the contract this year was $36.57 per ton (delivered to our site). Under the terms of this arrangement with the State we are obligated to buy 70% of this amount ($5,600 tons) and can purchase up to 130% (10,400 tons) at the same price. So far this winter season we have purchased 11,822 tons through this contract but they will not honor any more requests for salt. We purchased 7,470 tons ($273,177.90) in December so it was paid from the 2007 budget. We have purchase 4,352 tons ($159,152.64) this year in January and also 8,800 gallons of calcium chloride ($5,236.00) in January for total costs from our account for materials of $164,388.64 leaving $89,361.36 in our budgeted line item for chemicals (paid through Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funds). We have secured a source of road salt from Cargill here in Peoria and they are offering to sell up to 5,000 tons at $42.42 ($212,100) for the remainder of this winter season. To accomplish this we will need City Council approval for the contract with Cargill and will need a resolution to approve spending and additional $125,000 in MFT funds. We plan on taking this matter to City Council on February 12, 2008.

We estimate that we started this season with about 7,500 tons of salt in the Salt dome at our operations center. We have purchased 11,822 tons and have used about 15,468 tons which leaves us with about 3,854 tons on hand at the present time.

So the additional salt will cost $42.42 per ton, compared to the earlier guaranteed price of $36.57. That’s an increase in cost of about 16%. I understand from another e-mail I received that the city could get a cheaper price elsewhere, but they wouldn’t be able to get the salt as quickly. Evidently, Cargill can get it as fast as they want it, but it’s going to cost the city a little more.

I got this e-mail tonight from the City:

Update as of 9:00 p.m.: City crews are currently plowing primary routes, and will in/out plow on secondary routes. With warming temperatures expected, and in order to conserve salt, crews will not plow/salt all residential streets. Snow fall rates vary throughout the city, therefore work will be limited.

I’m not crazy about this policy. I’ll withhold judgment for a couple days to see how it works out, but I’m concerned that this could potentially be treacherous for neighborhood streets. Yes, it’s forecasted to warm up tomorrow, but if the streets were plowed, that would mean that the sun would likely dry up the streets. Instead, the sun is going to melt or partially melt the snow cover on the streets, and then it’s going to freeze overnight the next night. That means the streets could be slick and uneven. Plus, what if the weather forecast is wrong? It’s been known to happen.

What do you think of this policy? Should the city be saving money by not plowing residential streets in anticipation of “warming temperatures”?