THERE ARE NO PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE IN FOXBORO

The Town Manager in two letters has stated that in response to statutory requests for information that “THERE ARE NO RECORDS RESPONSIVE TO YOUR REQUEST”. He reported at the February 22nd open meeting that the Selectmen had “directed” him to pursue a ZERO/3% policy for employee negotiations. When requested the Selectmen confirmed this and directed him to provide the document twice. His current response is that the Selectmen’s comments should be enough, and “no record is available”!

The Selectmen on March 29th voted to approve a “license and fee schedule”. In response to my request for a copy, he states by letter, “There are no records responsive to this request”. What then did they vote on?

When I ask how the snow and ice $400,000+ and excess overtime costs are paid, and with who’s authorization, he writes on the request form “This is not a public records request ...” The request also asked for the source of authorization on  the payments; was it the Selectmen, or an appropriation? The written response was “-0-“on these questions!  Question, how do we pay these bills near a million without any appropriation, or transfer authorization by the ADCOM as noted in the statute? His response only covers the snow and ice, but ignores the excess OT! How this sum does not also appear in the subsequent year’s tax rate within or outside of the cap is not understood or detailed!

The other sixteen, not “the dozens” as he alluded in public, all but three are responded to in the same manner. He reminded all that the statute must be followed on requests. The statute states that a response shall be made within 10 days. I filed the first requests March 30; his letter response was April 29th. The second request, restating the first eleven, was filed July 11; his letter response was August 8th. My old math says this is longer than 10 days!

What do the Selectmen have to offer on this matter in open session? NOTHING! When I reminded them that the statute states the courts may be the next step, one offered that then they would only have to talk to me through the attorneys!

My other requests covered the grants, how many and which department, Fees by department, details on the alleged savings on the co-pay differential, the full wage and overtime expended data as actual, and not the abbreviated warrant single number format, and a clear understanding of the “call-in, substitutes, and reserve” expenditures if any. These items are all in a computer, and are printed in varying formats for specific departmental dissemination. Unfortunately it appears nothing is fully coordinated on the same basic system, and the Annual report data is calendar year format, but the warrant detail and unaudited financial statements in the annual report are in a fiscal year format. This hopefully will be corrected prior to next year’s printing, and that the Chair’s suggestion for the finance data to be on the web can be implemented. I have always had the impression from IT people that the search and print buttons are the most important means to specific data; why not here?

The last issue for the Selectmen as part of this monologue is a clear statement on the “KEEPER” (as delineated locally on the request form) or the “SUPERVISOR and CUSTODIAN” of records as defined in the statute. Nothing in the Town manager statute discusses this, and there is no record of a Selectmen vote naming him to this position. The existing by-laws imply that the Town Clerk is this agency, and that the custodians are positions such as Finance Director, etc. When one shows up at the Selectmen’s counter, one is sent to the Clerk’s office to file these requests. This is historic! How the Town Manager can assume this position is certainly a usurpation! The Selectman need to clarify this for the public benefit and contact. Requests can be filed in one place; but complaints must be made in several.

Where is the transparency?

Dick Heydecker, 508-543-9412