Monday, May 16, 2011

FOIL issue in Stuyvesant

I wrote this event up here. And now it's in the Register Star, a week later.

I cut out Freeman's stump speech because that isn't news. Also, Freeman said that the reason given for blacking out the invoices was invalid. He also ruled that bank account numbers should not be blacked out. He further agreed that the FOIL appeal officer should have responded to my appeals. She did not, as is clear by reading this blog.

That might be the story: on every issue of policy, Freeman had to side with the opposition (no redaction) and on substance, the supervisor claimed to have responded when she did not in fact do so. The letter Valerie Bertram referred to said that it was okay to black out the invoices but now Freeman says it's not okay, when he considers the reason for it, which is that there might be a lawsuit.

Here is my complete (if poorly and quickly written) email to Bob Green, referenced in the article:

I did receive a letter from the other lawyer in Freeman's office, Camille, and she said it was okay to black out the invoices. Camille's letter did not address the substantive issue in my complaint about blacking out attorney invoices, that the reason was bad, possible lawsuit. We seem to have settled that issue on Monday.
The response, obviously, was from Freeman's office, not Val. So it doesn't really account as a response from Val to my appeal, does it?
Here is the letter I wrote prior to Monday's meeting:
I note 16 issues, or cases.
This might be a good time to list the things I have not received through FOIL to the town:

-- Incomplete Boat Club documents, no photos, no inventory, etc., as per Bob Green article and Lee Jamison meeting (please prepare and advise of cost of duplication)
-- Document retention policy (I would still like a the URL link from the clerk sent to me directly to verify that the policy I found through google on Mr. Freeman's advice is correct as applied to the town of Stuyvesant)
-- Monitoring of Stuyvesant Forum by Howard Gleason (some response as to how the filing of public political statements is made in the assessor's office as Mr. Gleason clearly read and copied my post of 8/20/10 and refers to it in his letter of 11/13/10, some not about where this post is in assessor's office and a copy of any memos or documents that accompany the filing or use of this post)
-- Email from 8/16, response as to "instruction" issue, see PDF sent to Mr. Freeman
-- Redaction of invoices: I would like 2009 and 2010 unredacted

Now I have appealed (as of meeting Monday) more things:

-- Did not receive ZEO report to planning board March 2011
-- Did not receive cancelled checks, Tal Rappleyea
-- Delay in release of Platt video
-- Did not receive notices of violation, ZEO, FOILed 2010 August
-- Email about joint planning/zoning meeting: further inquiry
-- Redaction of account numbers in bank statements, all bank statements for the years: I would like 2009 and 2010 unredacted

No comments:

Post a Comment