Vernon is Lost on the Freedom of Information Highway

When I attended my first meeting as an Elected Official on November 17, 2009 an agenda item included a request for a review of the costs associated with complying with Freedom of Information requests.

Many of the items that were requested were basic documents that individuals could view by simply visiting the specific department.  What concerned me was we were paying for review of the requested items instead of simply complying with their requests.  At the conclusion of the discussion I began to realize that many of our employees may not be aware of the types of records they are tasked with maintaining, “Public” or “Exempt” under the Freedom of Information Act.

The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to have the greatest amount of access to public records at the least cost possible.  We must always remember that as elected officials, we are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the public has access to all of its “Public Records” within the limits of the law.  The public, when requesting records, is required to receive prompt access to the records they have requested and be informed when the information will be available to them or the reason that it can not be released.

§1-210 - Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

On April 5, 2011 I proposed an ordinance for the creation of an Advisory Commission that would have allowed the Town to begin to train the Municipal Employees with the assistance of the State Freedom of Information Commission in the types of records that are contained within their departments and reduce the costs associated with Legal Counsel review prior to supplying the requested records and work to develop a consistent fee schedule that complies with statute for all departments that will benefit the taxpayers of the Town.

Although members of both parties spoke positively about the proposed ordinance, it failed with a party line vote.

The failure of this ordinance has negatively impacted how residents are able to obtain information that should be readily available according to Freedom of Information statutes (see statute above).

An exact description of documents that qualify or do not qualify are attached as a PDF file with this blog. When a resident requests an item as per the above statute they should have the ability to inspect and copy it promptly during regular office or business hours. Recently, I requested a copy of an engagement letter as a Town Council member on October 3, 2011. To this day I have not received notification of my request, or the information itself. Here is the statute that relates to the time frame of delivery of information.

§1-206. (Formerly Sec. 1-21i). Denial of access to public records or meetings. Appeals. Notice. Orders. Civil penalty. Service of process upon commission.  Frivolous appeals. (a) Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for  under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public  agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four  business days of such request, except when the request is determined to be subject to  subsections (b) and (c) of section 1-214, in which case such denial shall be made, in  writing, within ten business days of such request. Failure to comply with a request to  so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days  shall be deemed to be a denial.

Unfortunately, I am not the only individual lost on the Freedom of Information highway in Vernon. Two residents have recently had extreme difficulty with receiving similar requests. They have been asked to provide information that is not required under the statute.

If the ordinance had passed, this simply would not have occured. Employees would have had thorough training in the release of allowable documents under this statute. Requests would be processed without the interference of a review by a costly attorney for every sheet of paper that leaves the town hall. It is absolutely understandable if there is question about a document being released that it would be acceptable for an employee to check the statute regarding the release or to send it to legal review. This, however, should not happen for every document being released.

With an original budget of $160,000, the Town of Vernon has expended $299,911.22 on legal costs in the last fiscal year.

Open government will be acheived when our employees are adequately trained in the Freedom of Information Act, and requests and responses are received and addressed in a timely manner per the statute.