Page 8 of 9

RTA acknowledges it's public property

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:32 pm
by BB62
BUT, that addresses only part of the problem. Signage only *may* be changed, and RTA's anti-gun policies remain unchanged (see the Rules of the Road and Code of Conduct).

In a series of back and forth e-mails, starting with the prior post on this thread, the following communications took place (read from bottom to top):

(red bold below is mine) NOTE - the "memo" referred to in Mr. Donaghy's response was from **2009**.

From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:57 AM
To: me
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP II**

RTA property is publicly owned. RTA signage is likely to change, replacing the word “private” with “RTA” or “GDRTA”.

From: me
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Donaghy, Mark
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP II**

Mr. Donaghy,

I’m not sure what you mean by “overthinking”.

Let me cut to the chase by asking a simple yes/no question: Are you saying that in fact the Wright Transit Stop is public property open to the public, not private property as posted?


Cordially,

me

PS – this is not to be construed as a withdrawal of my outstanding records requests


From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:43 AM
To: me
Subject: Re: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

Yes

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:26 PM, BB62 wrote:
Does the attached document contain the ‘memo’ you are referring to?


From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:07 PM
To: me
Subject: Re: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

The memo from me to John Thomas regarding verbiage for WSP signs. I believe it was sent ahead of the large quantities of documents.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 14, 2016, at 7:15 PM, BB62 wrote:
Mr. Donaghy,

I was sent more than a thousand pages of documents in response to a prior records request. What ‘memo’ (referred to in your #1 and #2 response below) are you referring to?

Please attach it to your response, as a response.


Cordially,

me


From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 6:55 PM
To: me
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

Here is an update by item:

1. We have found no documents other than the memo sent to you regarding verbiage for the signs.
2. Again, the memo sent is the only document we have identified.
3. There are no such documents
4. We do not have documents that address this request.

I think you may be overthinking this. As you may have noted by reading what we sent and our facilities code, all references other than the signage refer to property as RTA or GDRTA Property, not private property. The memo we provided was the only reference we found.

Mark

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:09 pm
by docachna
Wish I knew how to post a video of a good tap dancer.

Because they're tap dancing big time. :lol:

Re: RTA acknowledges it's public property

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:20 am
by DOA33
BB62 wrote:BUT, that addresses only part of the problem. Signage only *may* be changed, and RTA's anti-gun policies remain unchanged (see the Rules of the Road and Code of Conduct).

In a series of back and forth e-mails, starting with the prior post on this thread, the following communications took place (read from bottom to top):

(red bold below is mine) NOTE - the "memo" referred to in Mr. Donaghy's response was from **2009**.

From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:57 AM
To: me
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP II**


RTA property is publicly owned. RTA signage is likely to change, replacing the word “private” with “RTA” or “GDRTA”.

From: me
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Donaghy, Mark
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP II**

Mr. Donaghy,

I’m not sure what you mean by “overthinking”.

Let me cut to the chase by asking a simple yes/no question: Are you saying that in fact the Wright Transit Stop is public property open to the public, not private property as posted?


Cordially,

me

PS – this is not to be construed as a withdrawal of my outstanding records requests



From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:43 AM
To: me
Subject: Re: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

Yes

Sent from my iPad


On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:26 PM, BB62 wrote:
Does the attached document contain the ‘memo’ you are referring to?



From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:07 PM
To: me
Subject: Re: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

The memo from me to John Thomas regarding verbiage for WSP signs. I believe it was sent ahead of the large quantities of documents.

Sent from my iPad


On Nov 14, 2016, at 7:15 PM, BB62 wrote:
Mr. Donaghy,

I was sent more than a thousand pages of documents in response to a prior records request. What ‘memo’ (referred to in your #1 and #2 response below) are you referring to?

Please attach it to your response, as a response.


Cordially,

me



From: Donaghy, Mark
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 6:55 PM
To: me
Subject: RE: Dayton RTA - records request regarding "private property" signage - **FOLLOWUP**

Here is an update by item:

1. We have found no documents other than the memo sent to you regarding verbiage for the signs.
2. Again, the memo sent is the only document we have identified.
3. There are no such documents
4. We do not have documents that address this request.

I think you may be overthinking this. As you may have noted by reading what we sent and our facilities code, all references other than the signage refer to property as RTA or GDRTA Property, not private property. The memo we provided was the only reference we found.

Mark
Made it a little easier to see who said what. :idea:

Letter to CEO, copied to RTA Board

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:17 pm
by BB62
Subject: Dayton RTA - Status review of deceptive signage + noncomplying firearm policy = corrective action needed

Mr. Donaghy,

More than two months have passed since I publicly spoke (Oct. 4, 2016) to the members of the RTA Board about two subjects: 1) the deceptive and inaccurate “Private Property” signage on the public property which is the Wright Transit Stop, and 2) the fact that RTA was not in compliance with Ohio Revised Code 9.68 with respect to its wholesale prohibition of firearm carry on RTA buses and property open to the public.

I have also filed a number of records requests, at least one of which is now 56 days old - far older than the reasonably expected response time of 30 days.

On October 18, Kelly May of TV channels 22/45 broadcast a report which stated that you said RTA was doing a legal review of its policies. However, it appears that nothing has changed. Specifically, on November 15 you stated only that the signage was “likely” to change. In addition, the “Rules of the Road” & “Code of Conduct” supplied to me on December 15 both still include a prohibition on firearm carry.

With regard to RTA’s firearm carry prohibition, based on records which I was supplied with as well as information from other sources, it’s clear that RTA has been aware for years that its policy conflicts with ORC 9.68: you yourself said so in November of 2015. In that same communication you made it clear that you preferred that someone engage RTA in litigation rather than change RTA policy from within. Given that every other major Ohio regional transit authority is currently in compliance with Ohio law, I wouldn’t think that the RTA Board would countenance your engaging in such frivolous legal activity.

RTA has had plenty of time to consider changing its deceptive signage, as well as complying with Ohio law regarding firearm carry - so I’d like to know when RTA will be correcting both circumstances?

In an effort to be more than reasonable, I look forward to being advised within the next 30 days that RTA has taken appropriate corrective action. If I don’t receive communication of such corrective action, I will take further steps to facilitate RTA’s compliance.


Cordially,

me

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:03 pm
by AlanM
First off, since I no longer live in Ohio and in the 30 plus years that I did I only occasionally visited the Dayton area on business, I really don't have a dog in this fight. That being said, I am a FIRM believer in getting people (and organizations) to do the right thing and correct any mistakes they make and not treat others unfairly.

In my humble opinion I would LOVE to see a letter writing campaign of some sort contacting EVERY media outlet that has an influence in the Dayton area and EVERY social group to let them know that their city bureaucrats (read civil SERVANTS) have been warned and are about to spend, AND LOSE, millions of taxpayer's dollars fighting a court battle that history has already shown they CAN'T and WON'T win.

(Lord! I hope you can mentally parse that sentence, but that's the way my mind works.)

I've gone through several large bowls of popcorn following this situation and applaud Jeff's tenacity and dedication to the self protection cause on all the fronts he is working.

Is the taxpaying public of Dayton really that ignorant and apathetic with regard to how their civil servants waste their hard earned money?

That's all the pot stirring I'm going to do tonight.
All of you have a great holiday season.

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:40 am
by BB62
AlanM wrote:...In my humble opinion I would LOVE to see a letter writing campaign of some sort contacting EVERY media outlet that has an influence in the Dayton area and EVERY social group to let them know that their city bureaucrats (read civil SERVANTS) have been warned and are about to spend, AND LOSE, millions of taxpayer's dollars fighting a court battle that history has already shown they CAN'T and WON'T win. ...
Oh, I'd love to see the same thing, but don't hold your breath!

(and thanks for your warm words otherwise, too)

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:49 pm
by docachna
Seems as if the 30 days has run. Any word from the gubmint ?? (Gee .... let me guess)............

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:21 pm
by Brian D.
docachna wrote:Seems as if the 30 days has run. Any word from the gubmint ?? (Gee .... let me guess)............
I imagine not. BB62 and I communicate in other places as well as on here, no updates on this topic best of my knowledge.

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:27 pm
by BB62
docachna wrote:Seems as if the 30 days has run. Any word from the gubmint ?? (Gee .... let me guess)............
No news yet. I'm working a number of angles also.

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:55 pm
by docachna
Curious to see how this is progressing. I may be bumping up against a similar situation with Nashville-Davidson County Metropolitan Transit Authority's "Code of Conduct", which prohibits "weapons". Asked their legal guy if this meant firearms, and if so, where is this allowed in state law. So far - crickets........... :x

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:03 pm
by Suckerspawn
They have seen the light.

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/l ... 5EnwpLdYI/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:06 pm
by Suckerspawn
Suckerspawn wrote:They have seen the light.

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/l ... 5EnwpLdYI/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
....partially.

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:32 pm
by Chuck
Congratulations to BB62

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:52 am
by MacDonald
Suckerspawn wrote:They have seen the light.

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/l ... 5EnwpLdYI/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is GREAT news! BB62 should be commended!

But, according to the article, "As of March 21, companies in Ohio are no longer allowed to ban handguns from company property, but government buildings can choose whether or not to ban weapons." Is this saying that private companies are no longer allowed to ban handguns, such as stores and other private business that may or may not interact with the public?

Re: Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried gu

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:55 pm
by schmieg
MacDonald wrote:
Suckerspawn wrote:They have seen the light.

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/l ... 5EnwpLdYI/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is GREAT news! BB62 should be commended!

But, according to the article, "As of March 21, companies in Ohio are no longer allowed to ban handguns from company property, but government buildings can choose whether or not to ban weapons." Is this saying that private companies are no longer allowed to ban handguns, such as stores and other private business that may or may not interact with the public?
That may be what it's saying, but that doesn't make it correct. This is the media after all.