The FOIs are flying
First reported by the MRJs Jesse Buchanan, it seems that at this point everyone under the sun is trying to FOI the first ICMA letter. I wonder what the legal fees will be in trying to avoid the FOI request?
Tim White
Friday, March 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I didn't think you could avoid a FOI request. Doesn't the law say the Town has to comply? Why would we incur a legal fee to avoid giving over information that is public anyway? Can you provide some insight into what you are talking about- ?
I don't know what Tim is (ever) talking about, but many times people make FOI requests thinking that everything can be disclosed. Police Departments are often times caught in the middle between FOI laws and State and Federal security and privacy laws, that tell you the things that cannot be released. If the public agency feels that the request is for exempt items, they deny it. That leaves the requester to complain to the FOI Commission. If the FOIC erroneously orders the release, the agency can then take the matter to court. The joke is that when FOI does their training, they say that their motto is, "when in doubt, give it out." Pretty stupid, as the agency can also be sanctioned or possibly be sued for disclosing things that are covered by security and privacy laws.
"I don't know what Tim is (ever) talking about,"
Neither do I or Tim for that matter
Can you provide some insight into what you are talking about- ?
At the direction of the Council / TM, attorneys will fight the release of the first memo. IMO, that's a waste of time and money.
I opposed executive session and wanted to avoid all the secrecy, but I'm only one of nine.
As for the suggestion that the FOI Commission does a poor job of ensuring transparency, that's just a red herring. Nobody is perfect, but there's no legitimate reason to keep all this stuff hush-hush.
All the town has to disclose is the Deegan has been suspended. Personel records are private and not public record. Even as a council member, you have no right to look at or question what is in a persons file.
Tim, why not tell us who your pals are at the PD before someone gets an FOI on you.
10:09... you appear to be conflating two issues (1 - information regarding the Deegan suspension and 2 - information regarding the first ICMA memo).
With regard to town residents with whom I speak, I hold their comments to me in confidence.
Tim White said...
As for the suggestion that the FOI Commission does a poor job of ensuring transparency, that's just a red herring. Nobody is perfect, but there's no legitimate reason to keep all this stuff hush-hush.
Except when the law says that it's CONFIDENTIAL. Why have a Town Attorney? Some think they have all the answers.
Is there something confidential in the first memo?
"Some people dislike transparency and full disclosure.
Tim White
Posted by Tim White at 7/16/2008 11:04:00 PM 15 comments
Labels: public works "
And then you go and make this comment:
"With regard to town residents with whom I speak, I hold their comments to me in confidence.
March 13, 2010 10:41 AM"
So, as I see it, because SOME of the officers are town residents, you feel you do not need to disclose a relationship or comments from them? What a politician you are - spinning YOUR beliefs to suit your needs while berating everyone else. If I got really bored, I could probably find many more instances of double talk and back pedaling.
You are like every other politician out there. LIE LIE LIE.
Tell your source(s) Tim. Try being honest and truthful for once.
1:32... What is untruthful or dishonest about not revealing sources? You could argue a lack of candor or even inconsistency, but you have not made a rational argument that I lied.
Beyond that... my governing philosophy is that The People, not The Government, is the boss. You apparently disagree. But that is my philosophy and as such, I don't see any logical reason why I would ever disclose the names of residents with whom I speak about anything at all... unless they told me that's ok.
The unfortunate reality of Cheshire Town Government (along with many organizations, government & business, etc.) is that retaliation occurs. So people want their identities protected for good cause.
Tim White said March 13, 2010 2:25 PM...
"The unfortunate reality of Cheshire Town Government (along with many organizations, government & business, etc.) is that retaliation occurs. So people want their identities protected for good cause."
Oh, but what about the unfortunate town employee who was suspended? He/she has to have their name dragged through the mud and in the press before they have even had their due process. When the charges have been overturned, as they probably will, how will you un-ring the bell? This is why these things need not be made public in a NY minute!
"the unfortunate town employee who was suspended? " was suspended with pay and benefits. At this point it's like a vacation in some ways.
One might rightfully ask, what about the poor tax payers who are now paying someone not to work and no doubt must also being paying overtime for others to work even more hours to make up for the loss?
Assuming town management isn't incompetent in the end it will probably work out that the suspension was warranted. If that is the case who will reimburse tax payers?
If it turns out that town management was, well shall we say incompetent and the suspension was not warranted who will reimburse the tax payers for the costs of incompetent management?
The town employee is by no means unfortunate. Misappropriation of important keys can be serious in certain circumstances. If keys were misappropriated an extended paid vacation is about at good as it gets for the mis-appropriator.
Anonymous March 14, 2010 10:05 AM said...
"One might rightfully ask, what about the poor tax payers who are now paying someone not to work and no doubt must also being paying overtime for others to work even more hours to make up for the loss?
...If that is the case who will reimburse tax payers?
...who will reimburse the tax payers for the costs of incompetent management?"
First of all, you're not dealing with any established facts about the details of the matter - this so far, has been nothing but gossip and rumor.
Secondly and more importantly, since you are clearly obsessed with you will repay the taxpayers, things should be put in perspective. Let's see, which is more substantial, an employee's pay for 2-3 weeks or say, fixing the botched pool, the extra cost of the school bus contract, the cost of the unwarranted war in Iraq? When will we start holding the politicians responsible for the outright wrong, and bad decisions that are a waste of public tax dollars?
It seems pretty clear that a police officer has been suspended with pay so it really isn't dealing with nothing but gossip and rumor. Normally organizations suspend workers for cause. Organizations which suspend workers without just cause have management issues. Organizations which have significant numbers of employee suspensions also have management issues.
Everyone needs to recognize that as this mess plays out it is the overtaxed taxpayers who are paying the bill. What next, a Cheshire 'Rubber Room' similar to what NYC uses for teachers who cannot be terminated but must be kept on and on with no productive labor being provided because employee unions and managers negotiated bad deals for taxpayers?
Post a Comment