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…
