What does he have to hide? A lot, apparently

From DNA Info:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a private way of discussing city business — using an email account from his company, Bloomberg L.P.

DNAinfo New York has learned of correspondences between Bloomberg and a deputy mayor in which each uses an @bloomberg.net email address to discuss city-related matters.

The identity of the deputy mayor, the dates of the emails and the content of the correspondences are being withheld by DNAinfo to protect the source.

It isn't clear how often the mayor uses a private email account to communicate with his inner circle. But the discovery of the @bloomberg.net correspondences drew concerns from good government groups who see it as a way of avoiding oversight.

“It’s an end run around public access to public documents,” civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel said.

Like most government employees, Bloomberg and his staff have City Hall-issued email accounts. Under state law, the public has the right to see copies of those emails.

Siegel and Bob Freeman, the executive director of the Committee on Open Government, both said that the public also has the right to officials’ personal emails when the correspondences discuss government matters.

However, the public first needs to know the addresses of those personal accounts, Siegel said.

“I do believe that when public officials do public business using their private emails, those emails are subject to the Freedom of Information Law,” Siegel said. “When people resist giving up that information, it’s an end run around. We should criticize that kind of behavior.”

A search of a Bloomberg L.P. terminal shows that at least nine members of the mayor’s inner circle have @bloomberg.net email accounts.

They are: deputy mayors Patty Harris, Cas Holloway and Robert Steel; chief policy adviser John Feinblatt; director of intergovernmental affairs Haeda Mihaltses, Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott; counselor to the mayor Michael Best; senior adviser Shea Fink and mayoral spokesman Marc LaVorgna.

Why did CB3 try to meet in secret about the USTA project?

From the Queens Chronicle:

Community Board 3’s March 13 public hearing featured the expected theatrics of a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure applicant presenting a contentious plan for Flushing Meadows Corona Park: angry statements, slideshow presentations and the odd round of applause.

But there was a second show going on. In the idealistic world of open meetings, laws and light being shone on public documents, CB 3 has been the oddball.

The all-volunteer board has a history of thwarting press attempts for access to documents, and even for taking photos at meetings.

During its vote on the United States Tennis Association’s expansion within the park, Chairwoman Marta Lebreton took to hiding behind a sheet of paper when a camera lens faced her direction.

Fair game. But Lebreton also rebuffed a Chronicle editor who asked to obtain a copy of the motion voted on that evening by the board.

The state Open Meetings Law says all documents discussed at open meetings must be available, though a board can charge a “reasonable” fee for copies.

The board’s attempts to limit public access allegedly go beyond holding back records. Two parks advocates have filed a complaint against the board for allegedly acting unlawfully.

A letter from Robert LoScalzo and Alfredo Centola, addressed to Queens Community Board Director Barry Grodenchik, claims the board did not properly alert the public or press about a committee meeting on the USTA proposal held March 5.



A review of the board’s website shows no record of the meeting.

Geoffrey Croft, the president of NYC Park Advocates, plans to file a complaint later this week.

“If they have a website and it’s easy to post, and they do not, then that would be failure to comply with the law,” said Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government.

The letter goes on to say that a CB 3 staff member told LoScalzo and Centola, “There is not a meeting.” When they followed up, a staff member said “[I’m] not allowed to say anything.”

CB3 Telephone Transcript EXCERPTS

The Open Meetings Law’s provisions on meeting notification are threefold — community boards must give notice of meetings to media outlets, designated public locations and, if possible, put them online.

Additionally, the complaint alleges the board did not give documents to the public and attempted to prevent photography.

LoScalzo and Centola ask in their letter that Lebreton be removed from the board and District Manager Giovanna Reid be formally disciplined.

The letter has been referred to the borough president’s board and a response has been requested from CB 3, Queens borough president spokesman Dan Andrews said.

“We got a seven-page letter alleging certain things. We are doing what we should be doing. We reached out to our legal person. These are allegations,” Andrews said.

The borough president’s board has authority over Lebreton, but not Reid, who is an employee of CB 3.



This is a photo of Barry Grodenchik talking over the situation with Giovanna Reid and Marta Lebreton, who couldn't hide from the camera this time. Barry, you better do something about this. You're currently in charge of community boards and running for borough president, after all, and you don't want potential voters to think you support dishonest practices. We're certainly going to be staying on top of this one.

Remember, folks, the government has the responsibility to let the sunshine in, but since they can't be trusted, it falls on us to make sure they do. Did the CB's marching orders come from Julissa or Barry? We'll get to the bottom of it. Everybody sing!

CB7 has some nerve! (part 1)

Letter to the Editor (Times Ledger):

With regards to Chuck Apelian’s comments that Feinstein Iron Works take out a full-page ad in two local newspapers apologizing to him and Community Board 7 for his honest comments (“CB 7, Feinstein make amends after Willets clashes,” Jan. 20), it is amazing he would have the audacity to make such demands. After all, he is a public official in his roles as vice chairman of CB 7 and the CB 7 land use chairman.

Our organization has had the misfortune of dealing with CB 7 with regards to a public safety matter, which it quickly turned into an inconvenient matter. Marilyn Bitterman, district manager of CB 7, was responsible for writing a survey that was to be sent out to our community regarding the dangerous situation. The manner in which she wrote the survey was biased and stressed the “inconvenience” of driving an extra two blocks.

We immediately sent out a letter requesting to have more time to review the survey in order to come to a more non-biased wording and, objecting to the wording as shown to Alfredo Centola, we received no response and the survey went out anyway. We then requested to see the surveys under the Freedom of Information law; they illegally refused us. We obtained a decision from Robert Freeman from the state Committee on Open Government; they still refused.

A couple of months later, we received an e-mail from an MTABT official quoting Bitterman and her ill feelings to the president of our civic association. This e-mail quotes Bitterman as saying “she would step over his prone body and refuse to call for help.” Our organization immediately sent Apelian a letter calling on him to act, as the CB 7 vice chairman, to address Bitterman’s unprofessional and biased comments. He replied, “It will be reviewed,” but then never responded.

Several months ago, some members of our organization received a call from a man claiming to be on the board in regards to conducting an investigation. CB 7 investigating itself? To date we have heard nothing about the results, if any, to the investigation. City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Whitestone) has refused to get involved, saying he is not responsible for oversight of CB 7, but we only asked he inquire about the outcome of the investigation as our elected official.

We do not know what Apelian is looking for. If he has such a thin skin, maybe he should exclude himself from the vice chairmanship. For the most part, he has a much calmer and respectful tone than his counterpart Eugene Kelty. But to ask for an apology and take out a full-page ad in two local papers? Maybe CB 7 should take out ads in two or three papers to apologize for violating the FOIA law, refusing to acknowledge the Committee on Open Government’s decision and especially for Bitterman’s comments to an MTABT official showing her disregard for Centola’s life.

After all, what is right for CB 7 should be right for the community it represents.

Alfredo Centola
Dan Barton
Laurie Occhipinti
Malba Gardens Civic Association

State says CB7 may not withhold documents

Sent to elected officials:

The forwarded email below from the Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government confirms that Queens Community Board 7 is presently failing to comply with the New York State Freedom of Information Law, by deliberately imposing an arbitrary delay on the disclosure of records that are responsive to our FOIL Request. We are writing to inform you of this violation of FOIL and to formally request your immediate assistance, to encourage CB7 to comply with FOIL by immediately granting access to the requested records. The deliberate non-compliance of CB7 with FOIL and the associated denial of our rights is outrageous and we hereby ask your assistance to put a stop to it. Please advise us of any action that you are taking to help us to resolve this important matter.
- Malba Gardens Civic Association

From: Robert.Freeman@dos.state.ny.us
To: aj4cc@hotmail.com
CC: malbagardenscivicassociation@hotmail.com; gn07@cbnyc.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:28:39 -0400
Subject:

Dear Mr. Joyce:

By way of introduction, this office, a unit of the Department of State, is authorized by the Freedom of Information Law [“FOIL”; §89(1)] to provide advice and opinions relating to that statute to any person. In conjunction with that function, I have spoken with and received material from Mr. Alfredo Centola, who is particularly interested in gaining access to a certain survey which, according to CB7’s District Manager, is in your possession. She also indicated that there was an agreement among members of a Board committee that the survey would not be disclosed until the Board meets tomorrow evening.

Based on the information provided by both Mr. Centola and Ms. Bitterman, your District Manager, I offer the following comments

First, FOIL is applicable to all records of a government agency, such as CB7, and defines the term “record” in §86(4) to mean any information, in any physical form whatsoever that is kept, held, filed, produced, or reproduced by, with or for an agency. That being so, as soon as the survey existed, irrespective of its physical location, it constituted a “record” falling within the coverage of FOIL.

Second, as a general matter, FOIL is based on a presumption of access, stating that all records are available, except those records or portions of records that fall within a series of grounds for denial of access appearing in paragraphs (a) through (k) of §87(2). If my understanding of the survey is accurate, none of the grounds for denial would serve to permit the Board to withhold the information of Mr. Centola’s interest. I note that insofar as internal governmental communications, such as a survey prepared by the Board or perhaps by a consultant retained by the Board, consist of “statistical or factual tabulations or data”, §87(2)(g)(i) requires disclosure.

Third, it has been found by the courts on many occasions that a promise or agreement conferring confidentiality or its equivalent is irrelevant; in short, unless there is an exception to rights of access that may properly be asserted, records must be disclosed, notwithstanding an “agreement” or desire to withhold records.

Fourth, FOIL includes time limits within which agencies must respond to requests [see §89(3)(a)], and its statement of intent, §84, indicates that agencies, to comply with the spirit of the law, must make records available “wherever and whenever feasible.” From my perspective, when records are clearly available and readily retrievable or accessible, there is rarely a valid reason for delaying disclosure.

Next, the regulations promulgated by the Committee on Open Government (21 NYCRR Part 1401) require that each agency designate at least one “records access officer.” The records access officer has the duty of coordinating an agency’s response to requests for records. In addition, when a request is denied in whole or in part, either based on reference to an exception to rights of access or due to a failure to respond within the requisite time, the person denied access has the right to appeal pursuant to §89(4)(a). That provision indicates that the appeal would be made to the governing body, the Board in this instance, or to a person or body designated by the Board.

Lastly, Ms. Bitterman suggested that she was advised that requests for records must be made by letter. If she has been so informed, the information is inaccurate. Section 89(3)(b), an amendment to FOIL enacted in 2006, states that “All entities shall, provided such entity has reasonable means available, accept requests for records submitted in the form of electronic mail and shall respond to such requests by electronic mail….to the extent practicable.”

I hope that the foregoing serves to enhance understanding of and compliance with FOIL. Should you have questions, or if you would like to discuss the matter, please feel free to contact me.


Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director
Committee on Open Government
Department of State
One Commerce Plaza
Suite 650
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518)474-2518
Fax: (518)474-1927
Website: www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/index.html