SamPratt.com

The Hudson Waterfront: Decades in the Making

2020-02-12T12:05:02-05:00

Peter Jung and Sam Pratt of The Valley Alliance gave a presentation last night on the past and future of the Hudson Waterfront. The slides of the presentation can be viewed by clicking here. [large file, be patient!]

Pratt reviewed more than 40 years of citizen and official efforts to protect the Waterfront against threats such as an oil refinery, a toxic waste dump and a massive cement conveyor and barge operation.

These struggles, combined with City efforts (such as developing its Waterfront park, the Vision Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, et al.) have secured the opportunity for a healthier outcome which benefit a wide spectrum of Hudson residents.

Peter Jung focused on the promise the Waterfront still holds: the opportunity to deliver economic, social, cultural, recreational and conservation benefits to the whole Hudson community.

The Valley Alliance agrees with the findings of New York’s Secretary of State in 2005 that both the most jobs and the most enjoyment is to be had by creating a Waterfront where heavy, polluting industry does not prevent the success of parks, marinas, stores, restaurants, housing, entertainment, community gatherings and other mutually-compatible uses.

The presentation took place before the Hudson Planning Board, at the City’s central fire station on North 7th Street. Both of the two adjoining rooms were full, reflecting the widespread community concern about A. Colarusso & Sons’ plans to use the central piece of the Waterfront as a major gravel loading operation.

Keeler camp ducks D.A. debate

2019-10-16T13:03:24-04:00

Left: Democratic candidate for D.A. Gene Keeler. Right: Incumbent D.A. Paul Czajka. Sources: Greenport Democratic Committee, Czajka for DA web page

EDITORIAL NOTE: This site has interviewed both District Attorney candidates at length, and will soon publish a short series examining the race. Some limited material from those upcoming articles is included below as it pertains to this breaking news.

: : : : :

In politics, it’s typically the incumbent who dodges calls for a candidate debate. There’s often no upside for the front-runner to give a challenger an opportunity to catch up.

Such refusals can backfire, as when senior House member Joe Crowley sent a surrogate to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who then whupped him in the 2018 Bronx primary. But unless the race is very close, it’s usual for the incumbent to say no, and for the challenger to cry foul at the refusal.

Here in the upside-down world of Columbia County elections, the “usual” situation has been oddly reversed: Democratic Party chair Keith Kanaga has refused a request from GOP chair Greg Fingar for their District Attorney candidates to debate.

Keeler would appear to have every reason to want and need a debate. Keeler served a lone term as D.A. way back in the 1980s—but did not run for re-election after his failure to put away Wiley Gates for murdering four people, including three family members in Kinderhook. (Convicted instead on lesser charges of conspiracy, Gates today is a free man, reportedly living under a new name.)

Keeler has since tried but failed repeatedly to regain his old job, losing for example in 2007 to Beth Cozzolino, and to current D.A. Paul Czajka in 2011. Keeler and Czajka debated that year. And in theory, his campaign should want another debate. Keeler could use the opportunity to showcase what he claims is a change of message, from one of relentlessly attacking his opponents to what he calls a “positive campaign” centered on social justice and “reform.” With Czajka the presumptive front-runner, Keeler also appears to be badly in need of one of those “gotcha” moments which debates sometimes generate.

Nevertheless, in an October 11th email responding to the Republican call for debate, Kanaga said that “we see no reason to accept this invitation,” citing “personal attacks on Gene Keeler on Facebook and in his advertising.”

That reason seems doubly ironic, given that in the 2011 campaign, Czajka willingly debated Keeler despite the Dem’s publication of an outlandish faux-tabloid newspaper, which consisted almost entirely of vicious attacks on his opponent’s character. (Keeler had similarly attacked his previous opponent, Beth Cozzolino, keeping these up even after he lost the November 2007 election.)

Keeler’s tabloid mailer prompted even the normally mild-mannered Parry Teasdale of The Columbia Paper to endorse Czajka, denouncing Keeler’s tactics as “political trash talk” which left his campaign “with not a shred of credibility.”

Prior to the debate decision, when asked via text message if he would participate, Keeler gave an evasive (and somewhat illiterate answer) about “waiting for a campaign decision fingar sent kanaga a request for a debate.” When this reporter suggested it would be fascinating to listen in on a back-and-forth between Fingar and Kanaga, Keeler misunderstood the suggestion and blew up: “Do you know they have ignored me for twenty years -now this race I am at the center of their attention? Asking me for a debate? What’s that about?”

Keeler then added a personal attack on the mental health of both Fingar and Czajka. In other direct messages, he likewise attempted to steer this reporter to negative information about Czajka.

Once Kanaga’s declination came to light, Keeler did not respond to a query about the public’s interest in having candidates debate. He also did not address a question about whether refusing to debate could be seen as undermining his campaign claims about public openness and collaborative justice. Instead, Keeler thundered that “This race is not about me or my career. That’s over. This is my last attempt to put the criminal justice system on the right path. Cedar Park has a spot for me next to my parents.”

Asked to respond to the Keeler camp’s refusal, Czajka replied that “Believing voters deserve the benefit of observing candidates debate so as to enable them to make informed decisions (and, not unselfishly, believing I excel in such settings), I have debated every one of my opponents in all 4 of my contested elections. Therefore, I am very disappointed we will have no debate this year.”

: : : : :

So why would the underdog in an election go to such lengths to avoid debate? The decision (and the reasons given) are likely to send the message that the Keeler campaign does not think a debate would favor their guy.

The likely reason is that Kanaga and the County Dems are hoping Keeler might sneak back into office thanks to the continued wave of anti-Trump sentiment. Antonio Delgado managed to beat incumber John Faso for Congress, with a big assist from Democratic rage over the 2016 election.

Unlike Delgado, however, Keeler does not come across as cogently and compellingly as Delgado, especially against the more polished and experienced Czajka. In this scenario, the Democrats have every reason to keep their candidate under wraps, and hope he can succeed based on pure partisan turnout, rather than on the merits which debates are able to highlight.

Even more surprising after so many decades is that the Democrats are still running the same candidate who keeps losing. Perhaps voter registration has turned over enough to put Dem over the top, regardless of their local profile. However, several local Democratic candidates have expressed concern that fielding Keeler again will mainly hurt their chances in Town races, as the Czajka team turns out Republican voters who might otherwise stay home in a relatively quiet election year.

Whatever the reason, this decision may come back to haunt the Dems in some future election cycle, when they want one of their candidates to spar in a debate with a Republican. Now the GOP will have the perfect excuse to pick and choose when they make their own candidates available.

: : : : :

Links to campaign sites: Czajka | Keeler

Reilly goes rogue, nullifying Committee’s vote

2015-05-27T16:35:54-04:00

John Reilly (IMAGE: Gallatin Democrats)

Gallatin Supervisor John Reilly seems to want to head the Kafka Economic Development Committee. For Reilly, the chair of the County committee charged with overseeing economic planning, is now bizarrely denying what occurred in front of several dozen witnesses. Let’s review:

More than a week ago, at a meeting chaired by Reilly, it was reported by the Register-Star that:

“[C]ommittee members also voted to request a special Economic Development Committee meeting 4 p.m. June 10 to hear from Crawford, Sherwood and Better regarding the Ginsberg’s deal.”

The paper was referring to Crawford Engineering principal David Crawford, Kinderhook Bank president Bob Sherwood and attorney Bill Better—the three members of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) who were cited in a State investigation for failures to disclose conflicts of interest related to the controversial Ginsberg Foods deal.

This site observed and reported the same vote:

“Current Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin noted that the three ‘members of CEDC who are cited in the report have never come before us.’ Bassin later motioned to table Baer’s call for the three Board members’ resignations, in favor of inviting them instead to explain themselves at a future special meeting of Reilly’s committee—tentatively scheduled for June 10th.”

In the week after this site’s report appeared, neither Reilly nor any other committee member asked for a correction. Nor does it appear that any such correction was requested of the Register-Star, either. Why? Because everyone seemed to have seen the same thing.

Multiple attendees, including current and former elected officials and others present, had the same understanding of the vote. Patti Matheney of GhentCANN recalls:

“Art Bassin made a motion to ask Better, Crawford, and Sherwood to the special meeting to discuss the ABO report when Art Baer's motion for their resignations did not pass.”

In addition to the 5-0 vote in favor of Bassin’s compromise resolution, there was extensive conversation about the best date for a special meeting, given that time was of the essence. Committee members agreed to try for the 10th before the full Board of Supervisors meeting that day.

Following the vote, others in attendance spoke directly to Bassin’s motion, clearly referencing the invitation to the key CEDC members cited in the State report. As reported here:

“[Claverack resident] Ron Cardiss said that even if they were to take a ‘polygraph of Crawford and Better,’ that they’d just hear some variation on the old slogan that ‘what’s good for GM is good for America. They’re just going to say that what’s good for CEDC is good for the County.’”

In the wake of the meeting, attendees were buzzing about whether the trio would actually appear on the 10th. Would they snub the County committee? Or would they attend?

The next Tuesday morning, Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer—who had called for the three’s resignations, leading to Bassin’s compromise motion to have them come before the Committee first—wrote to Reilly:

“I would recommend you notice the special the June 10 meeting at 4:00 that the Eco. Dev. committee voted to have as soon as possible. And that Crawford, Better and Sherwood are personally invited to explain their side of the ABO Report. Would not want them to say not enough notice.“

That did not happen—quite the opposite.

Instead, the Committee’s 5-0 vote now appears to have been unilaterally dismissed by chair Reilly—who now claims things did not occur at all the way any of the above remember.

At a meeting this Tuesday of the CEDC, Reilly unexpectedly appeared in the company of County Board of Supervisors chair Pat Grattan. After Grattan sung the recently-stung agency’s praises for several minutes, Reilly (to the astonishment of multiple witnesses) then proceeded to deny that any demand or request for the appearance of Crawford, Better and Sherwood was made by his committee.

Moreover, he indicated that there would be no special meeting on the 10th.

After the meeting, one attendee told Grattan: “Reilly lied to you in there.”

This site has reached out to Reilly for an explanation and his version of events, and has had an extensive back-and-forth about what he believes transpired when his committee voted unanimously the previous week. Reilly now claims that they merely

“discussed inviting the CEDC to respond to the public comment on the ABO Report. At no time, did I, or the Committee, plan to single out or invite just the three individuals Supervisor Bear raised. The discussion was to invite the full board, including the whole Executive Committee…”

The full CEDC board has 22 members, making such an invitation impractical at best. Had that bee the subject of the 5-0 vote, someone surely would have at least suggested a larger room for the special meeting.

In an email exchange between several Supervisors which has since occurred, Reilly again denied what others recall had occurred:

“We did not discuss inviting just three individuals to the special meeting, or any meeting.”

Baer speedily contradicted Reilly’s revisionist version of events:

“[I]t was decided that the individuals who were named should have a chance to explain their part in the ABO report.”

While admitting to be fuzzy in his recollection of whether the Executive Committee or whole 22-member CEDC would also be welcome—something he discussed with Reilly after the meeting and vote—Bassin chimed in that

“My recollection was that we wanted to review the ABO report with the three individuals named in the report before voting on Art Baer's resolution to ask for their resignations…”

One thing is absolutely clear: Reilly decided on his own to nix the June 10th meeting—because he wants CEDC to have the benefit of a “retreat” first. He writes in an email to this site:

“I think they are best prepared to come to our next monthly meeting, not a special meeting the day before their annual meeting.... The CEDC has taken path to implement a whole new structure in response and not just ignore the issue as a technical oversight. If I am going to be supportive of public input, then I also have to applaud the CEDC's earnest reaction to that input.”

As noted by attendees of a meeting immediately after the ABO report came to light—an investigation which CEDC did not alert Reilly’s committee about, even when asked pointed questions—members joked about and scoffed at the State’s findings.

Reilly indicated in an email to this site only one regret: that they did not write down the actual resolution. He still insists:

“I recall and I think the minutes will attest that we actually set up the meeting to invite all CEDC Board and the executive Committee.”

So what are the status of those minutes? According to a source who spoke with the minute-keeper, she did not record the proceedings on tape. A draft has, however, been prepared. Prior to circulation to the entire committee, her minutes are submitted for editing by… Supervisor Reilly.

To paraphrase comedian Richard Pryor: Who are you going to believe—Reilly, or your lying ears?

Benson skips New Leb meeting on open government

2014-05-12T09:39:32-04:00

Bob Freeman (Source: NYS DOS)

The Chatham Courier has an eye-opening account of a recent trip to New Lebanon by Robert Freeman, head of the New York State Committee on Open Government. As he has all over the State, Freeman was invited to give a run-down on how New York’s laws are intended to guarantee open meetings and freedom of access to public documents via FOIL.

Missing from the well-attended meeting? Town Supervisor Michael Benson, who similarly missed some 70% of his County Airport Committee meetings.

One infers from the account by reporter Katie Kocijanski that there have been many complaints in New Leb about Benson’s willingness to comply with the spirit, if not the letter, of these long-standing laws.

County airport secrecy forces lawsuit

2013-10-07T13:08:02-04:00

Ken Dow, the attorney for Ghent residents Michael Schrom and Kevin Delahanty, provided details this afternoon of a lawsuit filed against Columbia County for failing to respond to requests for public records about the airport. Dow’s press release appears below; the full petition and affidavits can be downloaded here and here.

Ghent, October 7, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

GHENT RESIDENTS FILE ARTICLE 78 FOIL LAWSUIT AGAINST COLUMBIA COUNTY

Two Ghent residents commenced on Friday an Article 78 lawsuit against Columbia County, in connection with the County’s failure to disclose public records related to the County Airport and proposed plans to acquire, by purchase or eminent domain, lands abutting the Airport.

Michael Schrom and Kevin Delahanty, both of Ghent, filed a Freedom of Information (FOIL) request on August 21. Now, well into October, the County has not produced a single record or document in response. Their attorney, Ken Dow, said “the public has a clear legal right to know the information in the requested documents. This FOIL request was filed forty-seven days ago, and the County has produced no documents in response.”

Dow continued, saying “The failure to produce records for this FOIL request is just the tip of the iceberg. The County has been receiving other FOIL requests for very similar Airport- related information since at least February. The County has been under a state-mandated legal obligation to identify and produce Airport records since that time, and has disclosed almost nothing. For well over half a year, the County has blatantly and brazenly ignored clear state law in keeping this important information out of the hands of the public.”

Recently, elected officials have publicly complained that the people controlling these important records won’t even provide them to elected County supervisors. Many of the records sought in this Article 78 lawsuit are publicly referred to by County Commissioner of Economic Development Ken Flood and other officers or employees. Dow points out that “the County acknowledges that eminent domain proceedings are in the works. Yet when citizens ask, the County cannot seem to find any records that document any basis for taking such an action. We believe that can only be the result of willful evasion or stonewalling.”

The highest Court in New York, the Court of Appeals, says the FOIL law exists “to promote the people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations.” The County’s unlawful conduct has stood in direct opposition to this fundamental right of its residents.

Dow said “it is regrettable when citizens must commence proceedings in the Courts to extract lawful conduct from their governmental officials, but the long and troubling history of the County’s failure to produce and provide information has brought this on.”

Contact: Ken Dow
Attorney for Michael Schrom and Kevin Delahanty, Petitioners
kendowlaw@hotmail.com

County committee blasts TCI—then recs new regs to avert future disasters

2013-07-25T15:32:21-04:00

But has the Board of Supervisors already buried its own advisors’ recommendations?

PHOTO: Lance Wheeler

At least one positive change might come of the disaster last summer at TCI of NY, whose PCB-handling facility burned to the ground almost one year ago... That is, if the Columbia County Board of Supervisors heeds the advice of its Environmental Management Council (EMC), rather than suppressing its recommendations.

Finding that TCI’s operators “showed disregard for the safety of plant workers, the community, and the environment,” the EMC issued a stiff memorandum to the Supervisors back on June 24th. Drawing lessons from the TCI incident, the memo recommends “strategies that Columbia County and municipalities could adopt to avert the recurrence of such an event,” including tough new rules for the management of hazardous waste in the entire County.

However, over a month later, the Board of Supervisors still has not made the recommendations public. This site now has obtained a copy of the letter, authored by chair Ed Simonsen, and apparently recommeneded unanimously by EMC members, and it can be downloaded as a PDF via this link.

Noting the lack of disclosure, reporting, and oversight of TCI’s operations leading up to the company’s inferno, the EMC concluded that “numerous Ghent residents, and residents from surrounding communities who volunteer to fight fires, were exposed to danger due to negligence.”

Furthermore, the Committee found that even as TCI conducted at least one unpermitted activity involving PCBs, “no effective oversight was provided by any level of government.” Noting also that TCI lacked “appropriate fire suppression... chemical or smoke detection systems,” the committee then proceeds to offer 10 common-sense recommendations, which are reproduced below in full:

Any proposed project which would produce or handle toxic or potentially toxic substances should be subjected to a rigorous SEQRA process. Detailed plans showing all processes and operations along with their approved methodologies should be reviewed by an independent environmental consulting firm and the results of the analysis reported to the reviewing board. Plans should also include the identification of safe handling and storage practices of all appurtenant chemicals used at the site. Towns abutting this use should be designated as interested parties. Regardless of location there should be a referral to the County Departments of Health, Safety, and the County Planning Board.

Conditions of approval should include provisions for unannounced inspection of the facility by a qualified and or licensed chemical engineer. Assuming a local oversight plan, persons providing this service should be required to have the requisite education, license or experience to adequately assess those substances and procedures being used/carried out at the site. These should be augmented by NYSDEC and USEPA inspections.

The cost of each inspection would be the responsibility of the plant operators in perpetuity. An escrow account funded by the business operator/owner to fund inspections should be created.

Costs borne by local fire and rescue squads/ companies to equip themselves and train to address accidents at the site should be paid for by applicant/plant operator.

Comprehensive, detailed records should be retained by the municipality and contain all board reviews and conditions of approval or rejection.

If a project is approved by the community’s designated reviewing board, monthly reports should be required to be made by the owner/plant operator to the town board or its designee and should be available to the for the public to read, These reports would itemize and describe in detail and quantify all materials entering and leaving the plant. This would include all materials in trailers or other mobile devices. Copies would be forwarded to the local Fire Company and Town Board. The project operators shall also maintain off site material records which are held by an independent party.

Consideration should follow a risk analysis to determine benefits and potential detriments of a proposal which deals with hazardous substances. Communities may wish to exclude or deem incompatible some uses. Short of prohibiting a given use, the community should establish a “Zone of Vulnerability” which delineates minimum separation distances to schools, nursing homes, hospitals, or heavily populated areas.

The plant operators/owners shall not be permitted to sub-lease or sub-contract any portion or use of the site to any other entity without review and approval granting a special use permit.

Proper permits should be obtained and maintained with NYSDEC, USEPA, and OSHA.

A chain of custody for all chemicals and toxic substances entering and leaving the premises should be available to authorities upon request.

Despite the apparent urgency and importance of these ten recommendations, the Board of Supervisors did not release the memo publicly, prompting Simonsen to re-submit it this Tuesday, this time to the County’s Government Committee. According to one EMC member, Stuyvesant Supervisor Ron Knott “pretty much questioned most of our observations and suggestions. He further suggested that the memo be sent to the County Attorney's office to determine if the contents of the memo were legal.”

According to its mission statement, the EMC was created by the Board of Supervisors in 1974 in compliance with State Environmental Conservation Law Article 47, a/k/a the Local Environmental Protection Act. Its stated purpose is “to advise local and state government, and where resources within the county are influenced, the federal government, on present and proposed methods of using, protecting, and conserving the environment for the benefit of all the people.”

Methods of pursuing that mission include “research, recommendations, reports, plans, inventories, and public information and education,” thus placing the current memorandum well within its apparent powers and goals.

According to the memo, the EMC based its review upon “available reports,” in particular the February 2013 findings of the New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control.

Quiet flows the Don

2012-07-19T05:33:00-04:00

According to a longtime member of the Furgary Boat Club, Hudson Common Council President Don Moore has stonewalled that person’s efforts to discuss the fate of the 100-year-old local fishing encampment with him—going silent for over a week, after demanding to know where the member lived, and being told that member resides outside of Hudson.

If Moore, fashioning himself a man of principle, intends to adopt a consistent policy that he won’t discuss City of Hudson issues with non-residents, he may wind up with a long list of people with whom he’d have to stop talking. Don’s Don’t Talk List would also have to include, among others:

Gary Schiro, head of the Hudson Opera House, who lives in Staatsburg;
Peter Paden, head of the Columbia County Land Conservancy, who lives in Taghkanic;
Elena Moseley, head of Operation Unite, Cyndy Hall, Columbia County Democratic Chair, Colin Stair, head of Stair Galleries, and Paul Mossman, head of DSS, who all live in Claverack;
Todd Erling, Director of Hudson Valley AgriBusiness, who lives in Livingston;
Ken Flood, head of development for the County, who lives in Castleton;
Ann Cooper, head of Columbia County Tourism, who lives in Stockport;
David Harrison, the Columbia County Sheriff, who lives in Austerlitz;
Sheena Salvino, Director of HDC and HCDPA, and David Colby, President of the Chamber of Commerce, who both live in Athens;
Cheryl Roberts, Hudson Corporation Counsel, who lives in Austerlitz;
Giff Whitbeck, Assistant District Attorney, who lives in Greenport;
Ken Faroni, lawyer for O&G Industries, who lives in Connecticut;
Donald Stever, lawyer for Holcim, who lives in New York City;
Chelsea Clinton, who is rumored to be buying a house in Old Chatham;
Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator, who lives in Brunswick;
Barack Obama, President of the United States, who lives in Washington, D.C.

Moore’s (alleged) new law of discourse would also preclude him from discussing concerns with most every lawyer, banker and accountant in town; several Hudson police officers; all of the non-Hudson County Supervisors who represent other towns; all the non-Hudson members of the County Democratic Committee; and about half of the shop, gallery and restaurant owners on Warren Street.

N O T E : About 10 years ago, when the right to speak at Common Council meetings was finally granted to the public, the Council President at the time briefly attempted to prevent non-residents from speaking at meetings. When the unwise, impractical and probably unconstitutional nature of this idea was decried, the then-President relented—recognizing that nonresidents often have business, family, property and other personal ties to the City which may require discussion. Perhaps Moore wants to turn back the clock, and try that gambit again.

On the making of sausage (or: Dave & Don’s weenie roast)

2012-06-18T14:51:56-04:00

Pretty much everyone has heard the saying (often misattributed to Bismarck but more likely said first by John Godfrey Saxe) about the making of sausage and laws... Namely: that to maintain one’s respect for either, one must avoid seeing how they get made.

That saying seems to apply several times over to the records this site obtained recently via Freedom of Information Law request from the City of Hudson, regarding the 2011-2012 citywide reval of property tax assessments. Here’s another illuminating exchange between Common Council President Don Moore and GAR Associates’ David Bartlett:

In early March of this year, Moore emailed Barnett to ask for a spreadsheet of Hudson property assessments in Excel format, since he was having some trouble with the PDF version. Barnett replies promptly with the Excel version attached, and adds this eyebrow-raising note:

Please do not disclose that this is in your possession. In past projects, spreadsheet numbers have been manipulated and used to paint an inaccurate picture. All of which I know you know.

Moore does not challenge or acknowledge Barnett’s curious request, merely thanking him for the file and asking for another.

Since the data had been made available as a PDF on the City’s website, one naturally wonders why Barnett would caution Moore to “not disclose” its existence as a spreadsheet.

The likely answer is technical, but important to explain... PDFs can be scanned or locked to make it difficult for recipients to export the document’s contents into other programs. With the raw data in hand, a recipient could more readily search, sort and analyze the material in much greater depth. One can compute averages, medians, modes, and changes, or segment results by property class, neighborhood, etc.

So from a citizen’s perspective, it appears that Barnett is concerned someone might use the underlying data behind the assessments to—heavens!—actually check GAR’s work. He’s telegraphing to Moore: “Don't let people know you have this data in this format, because then they can come up with their own conclusions, and maybe challenge ours.”

Tellingly, Barnett seems to assume that any independent analysis would be “manipulated” and “inaccurate,” rather than validating their work. From this, one might add a corollary to the Bismarck/Saxe law: that when selling sausage, it's best not to disclose the ingredients.

POSTSCRIPT: For those interested in the details New York’s Freedom of Information Law, there are a couple of more wrinkles to consider here.

First off, it has been affirmed by State law and well-established in court—for example, in a recent case brought successfully by The New York Times against New York City—that if a government agency has a record in electronic format, the public is entitled to receive copies of that record in its original form.

For example, if a Mayor’s prepared a press release on his computer in Microsoft Word, sent it to his assistant via email, and attached a database of people two whom he wanted it sent, one would entitled to get those three documents in their “native” formats (Word, email, DBF). It would be improper for the agency to reply to the requests by printing them out and scanning them, as important data and capabilities may be lost in that process.

This might seem like picayune stuff, but for reporters and researchers it isn’t trivial at all; it goes to the heart of whether the press and public can hold their leaders accountable by delving into the making of their sausage.

A more pertinent example: Say a newspaper were doing an investigative report on whether a big city police department were profiling residents by race or neighborhood, and requested several years of arrest records in electronic format to prove or debunk such allegations.

If printed, such records could make up hundreds or thousands of pages, at 25 cents per page; whereas in their electronic format they might be sent as relatively small data files. More importantly, if these records are not provided in their original “native” format, the paper would either be stymied in its intent to do a statistical analysis, or else would have to spend a lot of time and money to have someone re-enter the data by hand into a searchable, sortable format.

In short, by not providing records in their original electronic formats when they exist as such, government can hide a lot of truths from the public, or at least make it much more difficult to arrive at those truths.

Predictably, Hudson’s City Attorney, Cheryl Roberts got snippy when these legal considerations were called to her attention, considerations I’d verified first with the indispensable Bob Freeman of the NYS Committee on Open Government. The City’s response to my FOIL came not in their original, native formats, but as scans of newly-made printouts, making them difficult to search, sort and analyze. (Unfortunately for them, I found software which pretty accurately scanned their materials back into searchable form, though no citizen or news outlet should have to go to that trouble.)

The City’s FOIL policy as it stands is to play dumb, drag out the time for responding, segment the process among its various departments, create unnecessary work for the City Clerk by having her scan printouts of electronic records—and then act annoyed when it’s pointed out that this has made things unnecessarily slow, wasteful and irritating for everyone involved.

A second wrinkle is that Barnett’s warning to Don Moore would not likely hold up in court, even if GAR had withheld the database file from the Council President. As a consultant to several government agencies (here, the Assessor’s Office, Mayor’s Office, and Common Council), GAR’s work product would likely be deemed a public record subject to FOIL.

Anyway, there’s still more to come from the GAR files.

FOILed

2012-05-23T12:48:52-04:00

Does the City of Hudson take New York State’s Freedom of Information Law seriously? The answer seems to be a definite yes for the City Clerk, but no for most other prominent officials, as we’ll see below. But first, a bit about FOIL and how to use it...

FOIL is a powerful tool which any citizen can use to obtain government records; and you don’t need to be a lawyer to use it. Any reasonably-described request to any agency of State or local government requires a timely response.

You can, for example, send an email to the general email of your municipality, putting it to the attention of the “Records Access Officer” with the subject “FOIL request,” followed by a brief description of what you’re seeking in the body of the message (say, the minutes of the Planning Board for the past year). Include your name, address, email, and whether you want the response electronically or on paper.

You don’t have to explain or justify why you might want these records, so long as your request isn’t overly-broad. Which is to say: don’t ask for all of your town’s records for the past century... though you can describe your request broadly enough to include things that might pertain to the topic, but which you might not know exist because they are buried in some official file.

Agencies have five days to either (a) cough up the records, (b) tell you there are no such records, (c) tell you it will take a little time to gather them, and give you a date no more than 20 days later to do so, or (d) deny the request specifying one of the few grounds allowed under the law. (An agency can be anything from a Zoning Board of Appeals to the Building Inspector’s office to the Town Board.) An agency can’t just ignore a request, even if it does not like it or doesn’t have the records.

If you do want to get to know more about the legalities of FOIL, the State maintains a handy web guide, and the Committee on Open Government’s Bob Freeman is generally easy to get on the phone to address citizen queries. But again, it really isn’t necessary to become an expert to use FOIL effectively.

Now: On May 9th, this site sent a message to the City of Hudson which requested in part:

a copy of any contract(s) with GAR Associates which was entered into by the City following the Council's March 2011 vote (Resolution 6) authorizing the Mayor to do so, and any official correspondence or amendments related to the terms or ongoing oversight of that contract to or from GAR. [...]

(This FOIL request applies to all sub-agencies of the City; please if necessary share it with those departments or officials who may retain records responsive to this request.)

The admirably-responsive City Clerk, Tracy Delaney, responded almost immediately, providing access to the GAR contract and other documents. She also indicated that the request also had been forwarded to the Assessor and Mayor.

Upon reading the lengthy GAR contract speedily provided by Delaney, I noticed that it required GAR to provide the Common Council with “monthly reports.” On the 11th, I followed up with Delaney to make sure that the City’s response to my FOIL would include those reports. (These are of special interest, since various City officials have professed to have been broadsided by GAR’s abrupt switch of all local bed and breakfasts from residential to commercial tax classification.) Delaney again promptly replied that she had provided what she had in her own files, and that:

The Council President does maintain his own files and he has received your FOIL request.

It has now been a good deal more than five business days since Council President Don Moore, Assessor Garth Slocum and Mayor Bill Hallenbeck have been in possession of this Freedom of Information Law request, but none of the three has responded—in apparent violation of that unambiguous State law, which states:

Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied...

Emails were sent to Delaney and Moore bringing the situation to their attention; Delaney again responsively replied that she had re-forwarded the request to Slocum and Hallenbeck. Their lack of response thus far seems to bespeak either a lack of interest in following the law, or a reluctance to provide the records, or perhaps both.

More to come on this, once the City responds... or doesn’t.

UPDATE #1: Following a firm nudge at the City, I have now received a response from Garth Slocum indicating that he has begun work on responding to the request.

UPDATE #2: Don Moore also finally responded last week that he had “made a mistake” in assuming that the City Clerk’s response relieved him of the responsibility to respond himself. (This, despite the Clerk’s clear indication by email that her files were separate from his, and that the request had been brought to his attention for a separate search.)

UPDATE #3: City Attorney Cheryl Roberts called at week’s end to say that they Mayor’s office was also now working on the the request, and that she is assembling all of the materials, but that they would not be ready until the middle of next week. Roberts agreed that the City’s FOIL procedure has become unnecessarily fragmented, claiming that she “tried to address this in 2006” without success.

I’ve raised that problem with Moore and other local officials before. Under the balkanized “system” instituted during Scalera’s reign, citizens effectively became obliged to play a guessing game about which City department might have records responsive to their requests, and then badger each department head separately.

As an agency under the State’s definition, the City needs to have a Records Access Officer responsible for overseeing the search for documents, even if that officer delegates the task of finding them to individual department heads. Otherwise, the intent of FOIL to open up government to the public is foiled, as delays, denials, clarifications and appeals proliferate for what is meant to be a single, direct process. Hudson is classified as a “small city,” but it is really not that big, and thus really shouldn’t treat its agencies as far-flung fiefdoms in the way that Albany or NYC might need to.