"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Thomas Jefferson
“Remaining quiet leads to lethargy.” This could certainly be summed up in one word: apathy.
Apathy is defined by Webster’s as “lack of feeling or emotion; impassiveness, lack of interest or concern; indifference.” Jefferson is arguing that the apex of this apathy occurs at around twenty years. An interesting number. Why not five? Or ten? Or thirty? Something to be said here. A little over twenty years also happens to be the number of years that the Democrats have had virtually complete control over the City of Hornell.
This city made history merely in the fact that the position of Alderman was contested in nine of ten wards. Not one race or two, but nine. The “spirit of resistance” has indeed come to Hornell. But then again, “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
In my own ward, for example, only 100 of 353 registered voters came out to make their voice heard. In spite of the words of support, the signs, the “I’m sick of this/that/the other, we need a change,” I had about a dozen of these voters just sit home. In spite of phone calls. In spite of reassurances. One lady said to me, “Oh, voting is today? I’m out of town.” Really? Just decided it was a nice day for a road trip? What happened to your interest? Your eagerness? Your passion for change? Now that’s apathy.
But what causes voter apathy?
I sincerely believe it’s caused by two things. One is that nasty, nagging sense that “no one will listen.” You vote your conscience; vote for the candidate you believe will represent you best. And they lose. Or they win and nothing changes. How often can this happen (say, twenty years or so?) when a voter just thinks “the hell with it. It makes no difference. Why bother?” A non-incumbent win requires something akin to what can only be called polite badgering. The Democrats did it very well.
One constituent of mine, an Independent voter, jokingly described our efforts to get her to vote as “Constituency Stalking.” Clever. And true.
Secondly, I think in our consumer driven society, Americans have become soft. As long as we have our television, our remote, our car (or 2 or 3 TV’s or cars), we’re happy. As long as I have money in my pocket, all is well in the world. We complain about the Mayor or the condition of the streets or imply corruption or talk about how there’s no dialogue. But the reality is these are just words. We are just venting and whining. We’re very good at it.
We’re not very good at getting off our recliner and spending ten minutes actually doing something about it.
It should be noted that in the wards where a Republican-backed candidate won or performed extremely well, the voter turn-out was very high. Now add to this the twenty years of experience the Democratic machine has had in politics. Sweet-sounding, grandmotherly callers, union backing…real foot soldiers to put the pressure on to “vote for Democrats” or else…well, bad things might happen (said with a whisper). City workers will be fired (how many of us know Republicans who switch to Democrat so they can get a government job?), the elderly will starve in their homes because the bus didn’t make it to their residence, house fires will not be put out because the evil G.O.P. cut Public Safety…on and on it goes. The usual mantra of complete untruths.
Or, as in my case, those who ask questions are called “troublemakers.”
Well, we can’t have any of those kinds of people in public office.
I give credit to my opponent, who, while not a single person I talked to early in the campaign even knew who he was, obviously pursued a more aggressive campaign than I did (with a little help from his friends) and handily won. As far as I can tell, he ran a clean campaign and from all accounts is a consummate gentleman.
My experience with apathy is not anecdotal. I think of another G.O.P.-backed candidate (this person actually won), who shared with me the “lethargy” in his ward. Neighbors, friends and people who have lived on his street for many, many years assured him of their support. “Put a sign in my yard…yeah, let’s do this!” He, too, after phone calls and follow-ups, found out that these “weak in the flesh” people just…you guessed it...sat home.
Yawn.
Still, the victories that occurred in Hornell on November 8th cannot be underestimated. In a heavily Democratic town, three Republicans worked so hard that they were able to break through the apathy, the lethargy, the indifference that leads to “death to the public liberty.” John Buckley, Randy Harkenrider, and Jim Bassage are outstanding individuals who will do great things. John Frungillo came so very close…talk about every vote counting!
The best thing that happened throughout the campaign was meeting these candidates and the Hornell G.O.P. Committee members. They are the finest group of people I’ve ever met. During a time when you realize your friends may be …well, not very friendly; during a time when I realized there were very few people I could trust, during the time that I was the brunt of jokes and hostility by basement bloggers and the recipient of an insulting, anonymous letter by an elitist coward, I also found a group of people that I could trust completely. A group of people who are loyal, honest, hard-working, talented, and intelligent.
And I consider each one of them a friend.
Thank you, John Frungillo, Brendan Smith, Randy Harkenrider, Linda McHale, Joe Flansburg, John Buckley, Joe Duffy, and Jim Bassage. I hope we can continue to work together to change this city for the better.
As the recently departed Father Kanka used to say, “Carry on bravely.”
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
F.O.I.L. UPDATE 3
The machinations continue. Below is my letter to C.O.O.G. regarding the City's latest "denial" er, um, "non-response." Whatever you want to call it. It is a nine page document in total, so here's an edited version of Page one :
"Please find the enclosed documents below concerning one of my recent F.O.I.L. requests to the City of Hornell via Clerk Barb Parrot. Please note that you have in your possession another appeal to a denial regarding one aspect of this request (bank signature cards, you will see the references in the emails). The City has now refused to respond to a clarification that they themselves asked for. I am hereby asking for an advisory opinion regarding this recent denial/non-response.
In summation, I have once withdrawn and replaced by clarifying and narrowing down size and scope due to a request for remittance of $4375. I have clarified twice (not including one clarification on bank signature cards) due to specific questions asked by the Clerk. The Clerk’s recent refusal to acknowledge my last communication to her is that: “there has been too much back and forth.”
I have offered to pay staff or any individual for the amount of time it would take to get these documents to me electronically. They, in turn, have offered me nothing unless I send thousands of dollars. Please also note that the Clerk states: “the records you are requesting do not exist in electronic form.” One day later, the City Chamberlain, who is in charge of these accounts, stated the exact opposite.*
I have included quotations from the Evening Tribune only to direct your attention to obvious misrepresentations. If you look at all of the exchanges below, you can see that I was responding very specifically to a question that Clerk Perrott asked of me. My response was a clarification that she herself asked for. They have definitely not “already responded” to my last request.
Given [public] statements [by the Mayor], as well as the fact that I have seen with my own eyes monthly “electronic” registers from the city’s accounting program that show actual expenditures and revenue from and for each account (which they provide to the Common Council members twice per month), it is my contention that the Clerk and Mayor are definitely not making a reasonable effort to find common ground where the documents I seek can be provided."
*Evening Tribune Article August 31, 2011: “Chamberlain Pelych confirmed these accounts are available in the city’s MicroFunds accounting program, and that they could be sent electronically, per Mikolajczyk’s request…money is allocated to each department…records could be sent electronically.”
Note: C.O.O.G. is overloaded with appeals right now, and it could take a few months for them to respond. No matter. Even if the City wins this battle, I'm not giving up the fight.
"Please find the enclosed documents below concerning one of my recent F.O.I.L. requests to the City of Hornell via Clerk Barb Parrot. Please note that you have in your possession another appeal to a denial regarding one aspect of this request (bank signature cards, you will see the references in the emails). The City has now refused to respond to a clarification that they themselves asked for. I am hereby asking for an advisory opinion regarding this recent denial/non-response.
In summation, I have once withdrawn and replaced by clarifying and narrowing down size and scope due to a request for remittance of $4375. I have clarified twice (not including one clarification on bank signature cards) due to specific questions asked by the Clerk. The Clerk’s recent refusal to acknowledge my last communication to her is that: “there has been too much back and forth.”
I have offered to pay staff or any individual for the amount of time it would take to get these documents to me electronically. They, in turn, have offered me nothing unless I send thousands of dollars. Please also note that the Clerk states: “the records you are requesting do not exist in electronic form.” One day later, the City Chamberlain, who is in charge of these accounts, stated the exact opposite.*
I have included quotations from the Evening Tribune only to direct your attention to obvious misrepresentations. If you look at all of the exchanges below, you can see that I was responding very specifically to a question that Clerk Perrott asked of me. My response was a clarification that she herself asked for. They have definitely not “already responded” to my last request.
Given [public] statements [by the Mayor], as well as the fact that I have seen with my own eyes monthly “electronic” registers from the city’s accounting program that show actual expenditures and revenue from and for each account (which they provide to the Common Council members twice per month), it is my contention that the Clerk and Mayor are definitely not making a reasonable effort to find common ground where the documents I seek can be provided."
*Evening Tribune Article August 31, 2011: “Chamberlain Pelych confirmed these accounts are available in the city’s MicroFunds accounting program, and that they could be sent electronically, per Mikolajczyk’s request…money is allocated to each department…records could be sent electronically.”
Note: C.O.O.G. is overloaded with appeals right now, and it could take a few months for them to respond. No matter. Even if the City wins this battle, I'm not giving up the fight.
Friday, September 9, 2011
F.O.I.L. UPDATE 2
As of this writing, the City is 24 hours past due on getting me a response to my 2nd F.O.I.L. request (sent Sept. 1).. Labor Day not included :)
F.O.I.L. UPDATE
September 9 2011
I received a letter from the City on Thursday September 8th. Apparently Labor Day didn’t count. Sorry, I don’t work for the government so I forgot it was a holiday. Common mistake.
They have reverted back to snail mail ($.44 a pop--way to use taxpayer dollars wisely), and waited all of the five days to send me three sentences (NOTE advisory opinion from COOG: “The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit entities from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request).
The first sentence stated their receipt of my request. The second two were as follows:
“The City does not maintain or possess the records you requested. The bank signature cards are the property of Steuben Trust and are kept on file there.”
Again, I will quote from COOG: A record is "any information kept, held, filed, produced, reproduced by, with or for an agency in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes."
Cleary a bank signature card is a “paper” that is “kept, held or filed” at Steuben Trust Bank “for” the City of Hornell.
I have filed an appeal to my denial with the state. I could be completely wrong on this. But it’s worth pursuing.
According to the Clerk, my requests are “abnormal.”
Worse things have been said about me.
Game on.
I received a letter from the City on Thursday September 8th. Apparently Labor Day didn’t count. Sorry, I don’t work for the government so I forgot it was a holiday. Common mistake.
They have reverted back to snail mail ($.44 a pop--way to use taxpayer dollars wisely), and waited all of the five days to send me three sentences (NOTE advisory opinion from COOG: “The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit entities from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request).
The first sentence stated their receipt of my request. The second two were as follows:
“The City does not maintain or possess the records you requested. The bank signature cards are the property of Steuben Trust and are kept on file there.”
Again, I will quote from COOG: A record is "any information kept, held, filed, produced, reproduced by, with or for an agency in any physical form whatsoever including, but not limited to, reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes."
Cleary a bank signature card is a “paper” that is “kept, held or filed” at Steuben Trust Bank “for” the City of Hornell.
I have filed an appeal to my denial with the state. I could be completely wrong on this. But it’s worth pursuing.
According to the Clerk, my requests are “abnormal.”
Worse things have been said about me.
Game on.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A F.O.I.L. SAGA: My Story
Well…it’s been interesting, to say the least.
First, a crash courses on F.O.I.L. [NOTE : I am no expert, these are just some basics to help the reader understand the series of events]:
1) Stands for “Freedom of Information Laws”
2) Emailed F.O.I.L. requests are completely valid according to NYS C.O.O.G.
3) NYS C.O.O.G. = New York State Committee on Open Government
4) Entities have 5 business days to respond
5) Electronic copies of records are the preferred method of transference (more efficient and less costly, more on that later)
6) No “reason” is needed to make a F.O.I.L. request
7) Requests can be broad or specific
My first F.O.I.L. request was big and bold: records for the past 5 years. Understanding that this was quite an expansive demand, I saw this whole process as a negotiation. I was gauging their reaction, and was willing to adapt. What is most interesting about the responses I have gotten is how the city is showcasing either definitive ineptitude or complete obfuscation. You be the judge. Here’s the timeline:
Tuesday, August 23—Requested 5 years’ worth of copied records for check registers, cash receipts, cash disbursements, billing records for Hornell ambulance, and bank signature cards. This request included the following statement: “If [they] cannot be emailed…please advise me of the actual cost of copying all records (paper or copied to CD) before filling request and we can discuss payment and a retrieval date/time.” This is obviously a recommendation that the records be provided electronically in some manner.
Thursday, August 24—The City Clerk responded to my emailed request with a mailed letter. The gist of it? Due to the “sheer magnitude and volume of the request,” I would have to send $4,375. Included in the letter was their assertion that patient names/health related data would have to be redacted from the ambulance bills. Um, yeah. There was no acknowledgment, mention, or response to my request for electronic records. There was also no response to my request for bank signature cards.
Friday, August 26—I sent a 2nd letter with a change in number of years (decreased) and some clarifications. Here is what was requested: “electronic copy of check registers for the past 2 years. This includes but is not limited to: accounting or computer software program files that are a ‘virtual’ check register, or scanned copies of paper check registers, electronic copy of billing records for Hornell Ambulance for the past 2 years, and a copy of bank signature cards.” I also offered to provide the city with a flash/storage drive.
*Note this from advisory opinions at the C.O.O.G website: [The cost of such action shall be ] an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to the lowest paid agency employee who has the necessary skill required to prepare a copy of the requested record…and the actual cost of the storage devices. It is our view that if an agency has the ability to scan records in order to transmit them via email and doing so will not involve any effort additional to an alternative method of responding, it is required to do so.”
Saturday, August 28—On local radio, the Mayor of Hornell stated the following: due to the “sheer magnitude and volume of the request…” (I wonder how long they can beat that phrase to death), it could not be “answered quickly…[she cannot] expect a quick turn around.” I never expressed those sentiments. “The people charged with that type of thing,” he continued, “have other jobs to do.” I’m pretty sure C.O.O.G. would not accept that as a valid reason for denial. “We have many accounts,” the Mayor said. That’s right. And I asked for all of them. “It’s going to have to be on our schedule, not theirs.” Again, I never put a timetable on my request. The last few nuggets in this interview? “We don’t have the technology to provide anything electronically,” as well as mentioning, of course HIPAA, which had already been addressed. In summation: the city does not have the capability to transmit any of those records to me electronically. My response was that all the city needs is a scanner.
Wednesday, August 31—The City Clerk responded to my second request with an email (I guess they realized at this point that I was not going to drop it and that it would be frugal to not waste stamps): “We do not have ‘check registers,’ so to speak. If you let me know what you are looking for, we can figure out what report you need.” Strange. I did not ask for a report. She added, “Are you looking for each individual bill or a monthly total of how much is billed?” Was I not clear? Copy of billing records for Hornell Ambulance. No request for a report or a total or a list. Just the bills, please. And the bank signature cards? Finally a response: “these are kept on file at Steuben Trust Bank so you need to contact them for this item.” Lastly: “the records you are requesting do not exist in electronic form,” and to remit $1250. The Mayor was also reported by the local newspaper as saying the following: “We don’t have check registers, we use abstracts.” Irrelevant.
Wednesday, August 31—I send a third clarification: “When I say ‘electronic copies of check registers’ I am speaking of any check register or ledger that is electronically available via your MicroFunds accounting program (these are easily converted to PDF and can be put onto a disc or storage drive). Director Freeman has stated: ‘software, because it is reflective of information in a physical form, constitutes a “record” that falls within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law…If electronic information can be extracted or generated (my emphasis) with reasonable effort, I believe that that an agency must follow the more reasonable and less costly and labor intensive course of action.’ If this is not possible I would like an explanation. I also offer an alternative route: scanned copies of registers/ledgers that can be converted to PDF and put onto a disc or storage drive. You are required to offer me the electronic versions of these files and include a cost for the time it would take (not cost for paper copies or ink) an employee to scan these items, if this task takes longer than two hours. I am defining “check register” or “ledger” as any and all transactions that involve the exchange of money: deposits into the account as well as checks from the accounts. You would like specific accounts for the above request. I am requesting records for the last two years of: Executive Account, Fire Department Account, and Ambulance Account. As far as the ambulance bills are concerned, I am requesting all bills for the last two years. As mentioned before, you are required to offer me electronic versions of these files (scanned to a CD or storage device) with, of courses, redactions of personal information."
Thursday, September 1—in the local newspaper, the City Chamberlain responds: “…these accounts are available in the city’s MicroFund accounting program and could be sent electronically per [her] request.” HUH? Did they just realize they have an accounting program? Did they just find a scanner hiding in a dust-covered box in a storage room? Did they finally understand what I was asking for because I had to define what a “check register” is? Does the Mayor not know how the Chamberlain does her job? Or have they finally just been backed into a corner that they can’t get out of? The Chamberlain continued, “the accounts only show money spent, not money coming in…the money allocated to each department…is not physically there, it’s all on paper.” Really? So I guess I’ll have to ask for general deposit records into all accounts in order to see the money coming in and…Wait, didn’t I already do that in my very first request?
Thursday, September 1—I had to send another request to the city RE, bank signature cards: “You indicated that you do not have, on hand, such copies at City Hall, and that I could request those records from Steuben Trust Bank. [I have been informed by an executive at the bank that they are] prohibited by law from giving me that information. Therefore, I am asking you to get copies of those signature cards from Steuben Trust for ALL city bank accounts. You may forward scanned copies of those documents to [my] email.”
Wednesday, September 7th —The 5th and final day the city has to reply to the above request. No response. They have until Thursday to respond to the letter dated August 31. I will post their responses as soon as I receive them.
The city claims that the redactions that need to be done to the ambulance bills cannot be done electronically. Are the bills all done by hand? Unlikely. Aren’t the bills on a computer program/file? Likely. Is there not a single employee in all of city hall that knows how to change/remove cells in an Excel program or convert a file to PDF? Does no one know how to do anything but print things out and use black-out marker on them? I don’t have answers to those questions.
I have been told that I am “welcome” to come in to city hall and “look” at records. Except for the ambulance bills, of course, due to privacy.
So here’s the real story: the average citizen who makes F.O.I.L. requests needs to take off from work to go into city hall during their business hours OR pay thousands of dollars to exercise their rights. And these people are supposed to be fans of the working class.
Lastly, on a lighter note, the Mayor misspoke on the radio and called my request a “complaint.” An innocent faux pas? Freudian slip? Just an interesting aside.
The Mayor has said that his is the “most transparent administration in the history of Hornell,” and that he is “not looking to fight with anybody.”
The proof is in the pudding.
Stay tuned…
First, a crash courses on F.O.I.L. [NOTE : I am no expert, these are just some basics to help the reader understand the series of events]:
1) Stands for “Freedom of Information Laws”
2) Emailed F.O.I.L. requests are completely valid according to NYS C.O.O.G.
3) NYS C.O.O.G. = New York State Committee on Open Government
4) Entities have 5 business days to respond
5) Electronic copies of records are the preferred method of transference (more efficient and less costly, more on that later)
6) No “reason” is needed to make a F.O.I.L. request
7) Requests can be broad or specific
My first F.O.I.L. request was big and bold: records for the past 5 years. Understanding that this was quite an expansive demand, I saw this whole process as a negotiation. I was gauging their reaction, and was willing to adapt. What is most interesting about the responses I have gotten is how the city is showcasing either definitive ineptitude or complete obfuscation. You be the judge. Here’s the timeline:
Tuesday, August 23—Requested 5 years’ worth of copied records for check registers, cash receipts, cash disbursements, billing records for Hornell ambulance, and bank signature cards. This request included the following statement: “If [they] cannot be emailed…please advise me of the actual cost of copying all records (paper or copied to CD) before filling request and we can discuss payment and a retrieval date/time.” This is obviously a recommendation that the records be provided electronically in some manner.
Thursday, August 24—The City Clerk responded to my emailed request with a mailed letter. The gist of it? Due to the “sheer magnitude and volume of the request,” I would have to send $4,375. Included in the letter was their assertion that patient names/health related data would have to be redacted from the ambulance bills. Um, yeah. There was no acknowledgment, mention, or response to my request for electronic records. There was also no response to my request for bank signature cards.
Friday, August 26—I sent a 2nd letter with a change in number of years (decreased) and some clarifications. Here is what was requested: “electronic copy of check registers for the past 2 years. This includes but is not limited to: accounting or computer software program files that are a ‘virtual’ check register, or scanned copies of paper check registers, electronic copy of billing records for Hornell Ambulance for the past 2 years, and a copy of bank signature cards.” I also offered to provide the city with a flash/storage drive.
*Note this from advisory opinions at the C.O.O.G website: [The cost of such action shall be ] an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to the lowest paid agency employee who has the necessary skill required to prepare a copy of the requested record…and the actual cost of the storage devices. It is our view that if an agency has the ability to scan records in order to transmit them via email and doing so will not involve any effort additional to an alternative method of responding, it is required to do so.”
Saturday, August 28—On local radio, the Mayor of Hornell stated the following: due to the “sheer magnitude and volume of the request…” (I wonder how long they can beat that phrase to death), it could not be “answered quickly…[she cannot] expect a quick turn around.” I never expressed those sentiments. “The people charged with that type of thing,” he continued, “have other jobs to do.” I’m pretty sure C.O.O.G. would not accept that as a valid reason for denial. “We have many accounts,” the Mayor said. That’s right. And I asked for all of them. “It’s going to have to be on our schedule, not theirs.” Again, I never put a timetable on my request. The last few nuggets in this interview? “We don’t have the technology to provide anything electronically,” as well as mentioning, of course HIPAA, which had already been addressed. In summation: the city does not have the capability to transmit any of those records to me electronically. My response was that all the city needs is a scanner.
Wednesday, August 31—The City Clerk responded to my second request with an email (I guess they realized at this point that I was not going to drop it and that it would be frugal to not waste stamps): “We do not have ‘check registers,’ so to speak. If you let me know what you are looking for, we can figure out what report you need.” Strange. I did not ask for a report. She added, “Are you looking for each individual bill or a monthly total of how much is billed?” Was I not clear? Copy of billing records for Hornell Ambulance. No request for a report or a total or a list. Just the bills, please. And the bank signature cards? Finally a response: “these are kept on file at Steuben Trust Bank so you need to contact them for this item.” Lastly: “the records you are requesting do not exist in electronic form,” and to remit $1250. The Mayor was also reported by the local newspaper as saying the following: “We don’t have check registers, we use abstracts.” Irrelevant.
Wednesday, August 31—I send a third clarification: “When I say ‘electronic copies of check registers’ I am speaking of any check register or ledger that is electronically available via your MicroFunds accounting program (these are easily converted to PDF and can be put onto a disc or storage drive). Director Freeman has stated: ‘software, because it is reflective of information in a physical form, constitutes a “record” that falls within the coverage of the Freedom of Information Law…If electronic information can be extracted or generated (my emphasis) with reasonable effort, I believe that that an agency must follow the more reasonable and less costly and labor intensive course of action.’ If this is not possible I would like an explanation. I also offer an alternative route: scanned copies of registers/ledgers that can be converted to PDF and put onto a disc or storage drive. You are required to offer me the electronic versions of these files and include a cost for the time it would take (not cost for paper copies or ink) an employee to scan these items, if this task takes longer than two hours. I am defining “check register” or “ledger” as any and all transactions that involve the exchange of money: deposits into the account as well as checks from the accounts. You would like specific accounts for the above request. I am requesting records for the last two years of: Executive Account, Fire Department Account, and Ambulance Account. As far as the ambulance bills are concerned, I am requesting all bills for the last two years. As mentioned before, you are required to offer me electronic versions of these files (scanned to a CD or storage device) with, of courses, redactions of personal information."
Thursday, September 1—in the local newspaper, the City Chamberlain responds: “…these accounts are available in the city’s MicroFund accounting program and could be sent electronically per [her] request.” HUH? Did they just realize they have an accounting program? Did they just find a scanner hiding in a dust-covered box in a storage room? Did they finally understand what I was asking for because I had to define what a “check register” is? Does the Mayor not know how the Chamberlain does her job? Or have they finally just been backed into a corner that they can’t get out of? The Chamberlain continued, “the accounts only show money spent, not money coming in…the money allocated to each department…is not physically there, it’s all on paper.” Really? So I guess I’ll have to ask for general deposit records into all accounts in order to see the money coming in and…Wait, didn’t I already do that in my very first request?
Thursday, September 1—I had to send another request to the city RE, bank signature cards: “You indicated that you do not have, on hand, such copies at City Hall, and that I could request those records from Steuben Trust Bank. [I have been informed by an executive at the bank that they are] prohibited by law from giving me that information. Therefore, I am asking you to get copies of those signature cards from Steuben Trust for ALL city bank accounts. You may forward scanned copies of those documents to [my] email.”
Wednesday, September 7th —The 5th and final day the city has to reply to the above request. No response. They have until Thursday to respond to the letter dated August 31. I will post their responses as soon as I receive them.
The city claims that the redactions that need to be done to the ambulance bills cannot be done electronically. Are the bills all done by hand? Unlikely. Aren’t the bills on a computer program/file? Likely. Is there not a single employee in all of city hall that knows how to change/remove cells in an Excel program or convert a file to PDF? Does no one know how to do anything but print things out and use black-out marker on them? I don’t have answers to those questions.
I have been told that I am “welcome” to come in to city hall and “look” at records. Except for the ambulance bills, of course, due to privacy.
So here’s the real story: the average citizen who makes F.O.I.L. requests needs to take off from work to go into city hall during their business hours OR pay thousands of dollars to exercise their rights. And these people are supposed to be fans of the working class.
Lastly, on a lighter note, the Mayor misspoke on the radio and called my request a “complaint.” An innocent faux pas? Freudian slip? Just an interesting aside.
The Mayor has said that his is the “most transparent administration in the history of Hornell,” and that he is “not looking to fight with anybody.”
The proof is in the pudding.
Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)