I received the same email from the city. I know Mr. Jensen, and so I asked him about it. His motives were innocent — he has been busy researching information on the planned tolling and thought that others who had signed up to receive that information from the city would also be interested in what he had found. As soon as he realized that it would be perceived as unsolicited email, he withdrew his request.
I also asked Ms. Gale about it, and she was puzzled because she didn't ask for a copy to take home with her. Her concern was more to do with trying to understand how the city had acquired so many email addresses and was wondering if they had overstepped. I don't think she got an answer by looking at the email list, but that is all she did.
I think Katie Knight mishandled this whole thing.
1. If she had talked to Mr. Jensen and explained things clearly, he would have withdrawn his request. He is a reasonable person.
2. She apparently misunderstood what Ms. Gale was interested in — and that, too, could have been cleared up by talking with her.
3. She sent an email out to 2,600 people and upset many of them over nothing. Plus, she alerted all these people (and anyone else they might mention it to) that all these email addresses can be had by ANYONE who requests them.
4. She sent out a correction email — but ONLY to the people who emailed the city to complain (and it repeats the error regarding Ms Gale's initial request).
I think that if anyone can request the I-90 tolling email list, it probably means they can request other email lists from the city (such as the one for the weekly newsletter).