Joseph Baranello is the Central Records Access Officer for the NYC Department of Education. He sits at 52 Chambers Street, and denies Freedom of Information requests at random. If you want information from him immediately, forget it. He will delay his response for more than two years, if he feels like it. I found him on Facebook.
He writes:
Joe Baranello "Bottom line--I miss the days when it was crowds of trannies and drag queens roaming the streets".
December 12, 2009 at 10:29pm (Baranello's main Facebook page photo above)
Joe Baranello I was on the L this afternoon when 100
or more Santas boarded at Bedford. It was the biggest collection of
douchebags I have stumbled into in at least a decade. They would burst into
drunken caroling every twenty seconds or so. Anyone who made a nasty remark
was shouted down with chants of "Grinch! Grinch!". By the end of
the ride it got ugly. One biker chick started ripping the beard off a Santa
and belted him.
December 12, 2009 at
10:23pm
A post SantaCon furry ménage
Share · December 12, 2009
Joe Baranello "Then, at union square they deboarded.
I went to 6th ave just go avoid them, and walked back to union sq. Oops! Bad
move. There were hundreds of f-ing santas all over the area, congregating on
University and headed south, towards what fratty sh-hole one can only
imagine, and shudder at the thought. This photo was taken hours later on the
way back".
December 12, 2009 at
10:27pm
December 12, 2009 at 2:47pm
December 12, 2009 at 2:48pm
Joe Baranello "Indeed! Looking back
on it, these three were harmless and cute. But the others...oy!"
September 19, 2010 at 4:42pm
Several months ago
the pictures and comments above were on his Facebook page.
Today, the New York City Department of Education is trying
to keep Christine Rubino fired after she made a stupid
comment on her private Facebook page in a moment of frustration. Randi
Lowitt, the Hearing Officer at Christine's Section 3020-a arbitration hearing
(which I attended) ignored Christine's stellar record of 15 years, ignored
the fact that the Principal adored Christine and did not want her terminated,
ignored the fact that Christine admitted the improper comment being placed on
her Facebook page, and that she took it down and apologized.
Vote on whether or
not a public employee should be writing these comments. I will post replies
if relevant to this question.
Are you listening,
Dennis?? Mike (Best)?
Betsy Combier
|
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Joe Baranello. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Joe Baranello. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
NYC Department of Education Attorney Joseph Baranello Uses Facebook To Comment About The "Douchebags" On The L Train
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Joe Baranello Says Pay or You Dont Get To Play (F11,129)
 |
| NYC DOE Joe Baranello |
General Counsel
FOIL Appeals Officer
Committee on Open Government
Dear Ms. Jackson-Chase,
Today, I received, once again, an email from your Records Access Officer Joseph Baranello which delays the release of records, digitally stored data, and documents pertinent to your meeting held at your office on February 24, 2015, at 4 PM with NYSUT/DOE attorneys and arbitrators currently working on §3020-a cases in New York City:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, I am appealing this constructive denial of access by Records Access Officer Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.
The advisory opinion by Robert J. Freeman which was cited by Mr. Baranello, FOIL-AO-19021, is here:
FOIL-AO-19021
From: Freeman, Robert (DOS)
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:00 PM
To:
Cc: 'Maureen.Murphy@suny.edu'
Subject: RE: FOIL Request Control No. 1315
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:00 PM
To:
Cc: 'Maureen.Murphy@suny.edu'
Subject: RE: FOIL Request Control No. 1315
Dear :
I have received your note - - the response to your request by SUNY regarding fees is not, in my view, entirely clear.
Section 87(1)(c) of FOIL authorizes an agency to establish a fee based on the actual cost of reproducing records that are maintained electronically. If it takes 2 hours or more to prepare the records sought, an agency may charge a fee based on the hourly salary of the lowest paid employee able to do so, plus the cost of the storage media. If it takes less than two hours, the actual cost would involve only the storage media.
The issue with respect to the response involves the term “prepare.” We agree that the effort needed to extract records or data involves the preparation of records. If redaction is accomplished electronically, that, too would likely be found by a court to reflect the preparation of a record. However, if, for example, records are extracted and exist in paper form, and if redactions are made manually, the process of redacting would not, in our opinion, constitute the preparation of records; the records would already have been prepared, and the agency would redact or delete portions of those records already prepared in order to disclose the remainder. No fee may be charged in that latter circumstance.
I hope that I have been of assistance.
FOIL-AO-f1902119021
For comparison purposes, I am in possession of similar FOIL requests made by me that the New York State Education Department, when responding to a request for records which may require a fee, writes:
"SED charges the statutorily permitted fee of $.25 per page for duplication of records requested under FOIL (Public Officers Law §87[1][b][iii]). There is no provision in law or regulation requiring the waiver of this fee. Payment must be made to the NYS Education Department by check or money order. Do not send any payment until you are notified that your request is granted and informed of the charge for your request. If your request is for electronic records and your requested is granted, the records will be provided to you in that format.
If your request is granted one of the following will happen:
1. If your request can be filled immediately, and the total duplication fee is under $25.00, staff will forward the requested records to you with a statement of what you owe for the duplication fee. Or:
2. If the total duplication fee for your request is $25.00 or more (100 pages), you will be advised of the page count and duplication fee owed in advance of duplicating the records. Upon receipt of payment, staff will duplicate and mail the requested records. Or:
3. If it will take time to locate and/or duplicate the records you have requested, you will be given a date by which you will be told the page count and duplication fee for your request."
This seems very reasonable to me, and I am seeking an analogous response from you when you determine this appeal of the delay and constructive denial of access of the records requested in F11,129.
I obviously know that you called this meeting. It was held in your offices at Tweed. I know when it occurred and how the people invited were told about the meeting.
I have sent emails to the FOIL Unit and posted my requests on my blog for a specific and detailed invoice for the records relating to F11,129 be given to me before I commit to paying an amount which may or may not cover all the records from this plenary meeting.
Mr. Baranello is stonewalling me.
I am appealing to you, as the organizer of the plenary meeting on February 24, 2015, and as the Records Appeals Officer, to please detail how much I will be charged, and the number of (1) electronic records and (2) documents this fee includes, so that I may choose to pay all or part of the amount you demand. My advocacy for teachers who are undergoing, or about to undergo, §3020-a hearings is harmed by this delay.
Please reply within the ten (10) days required by the Freedom of Information Law. Thank you for your
attention and consideration!
Betsy Combier
Betsy Combier Files a Freedom of Information Request to Obtain the Information Given Out At The NYC DOE February 24, 2015 Secret Meeting on 3020-a Hearings
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Once Again, Betsy Combier Questions the Delay in Getting Information About the Feb. 24, 2015 Plenary Meeting About 3020-a Prosecution by the DOE
 |
| Betsy in her office at the UFT, 16th floor, 52 Broadway circa 2009 |
Betsy Combier Files a Freedom of Information Request to Obtain the Information Given Out At The NYC DOE February 24, 2015 Secret Meeting on 3020-a Hearings
Joe Baranello and His New Facebook Comment on the City, as Well as His Refusal to Answer Betsy Combier's FOIL Request #11,129
Another Request Sent By Betsy Combier Concerning F11,129 For Records of the Mandatory 3020-a Meeting Held on February 24, 2015
Betsy Combier Asks FOIL Officer Joe BaranelloTo Clarify the Fees of $29.95/hr For F11,129
You are probably wondering why I am posting all of my requests for information relating to the February 24, 2015 plenary meeting held at Tweed, NYC Department of Education headquarters for all NYSUT and DOE Attorneys as well as all the NYC 3020-a arbitrators.
After investigating the procedures used at 3020-a for the past 12 years, and now working as a paralegal/advocate for Respondents charged with 3020-a, I need to know what the current policies are for 3020-a according to the "Star Chamber" folk.
One of the private Attorneys who works with me on 3020-a cases for almost 5 years asked the DOE General Counsel, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, if we could attend the February meeting, and she told us that no, there was no space, and there would be another meeting for private attorneys at another time. That was the last we heard. Can we, the general public accept the fact that there is too much secrecy surrounding 3020-a and getting good people charged with frivolous charges?
The fact that the public has been shut out of how DOE employees brought to 3020-a are to be prosecuted is alarming.
On May 8, 2015 I received an answer from First General Counsel Judy Nathan to my appeal of the denial of access to the information about the plenary meeting and about the fees. See below for the email reply from Ms. Nathan as well as my response to her, sent May 9, 2015:
May 9, 2015
Dear Ms. Nathan,
Ms. Nathan, your title is "First Deputy Counsel," and you are listed underneath Charity Guerra, whose title is "Chief Deputy Counsel."
Please see the "Contacts" listing below.
I copied it from the Office of the General Counsel page on the website of the NYC DOE.
http://schools.nyc.gov/
Contacts
Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, General Counsel
Charity Guerra, Chief Deputy
CounselCGuerra7@schools.nyc.gov
Judy Nathan, First Deputy
CounselJNathan@schools.nyc.gov
(Please note that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase's email address was omitted from the "Contacts" listing on the webpage, so I will put it here:
General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra know very well that I have the facts on Ms. Guerra's jumping from the CSA to the DOE while defending a principal against the DOE in front of Arbitrator Joel Douglas. I believe that your denial of my appeal is directly related to my knowledge about that case. (Respondent J.K.)
And, I am currently suing Joseph A. Baranello, Esq., for FOIL violations. I am in the New York State Supreme Court and my complaint concerns unreasonable delays by Mr. Baranello and his office when I requested the contract of former Chancellor Dennis Walcott. I received nothing for almost two years.
I am also quite concerned about your statements below:
On March 17, 2015, I filed a freedom of information request for the documents, emails, videos, and all other relevant information concerning the February 24, 2015 meeting held in your office by Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Adam Ross, UFT Attorney. The meeting is not for DOE personnel only, but the many different groups involved in NYC 3020-a arbitration. Two months later, you are claiming that you have no idea how many documents and/or recordings exist, and have to locate them. Did you ask Ms. Jackson-Chase?
I will then pay $.25/page and the cost of the CD.
Or, in the alternative, I suggest that the FOIL Unit use a file-sharing service such as www.dropbox.com to eliminate the need for a CD.
Here is some information about the service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Betsy Combier
Dear Ms. Nathan,
Thank you for the timely reply.
Ms. Nathan, your title is "First Deputy Counsel," and you are listed underneath Charity Guerra, whose title is "Chief Deputy Counsel."
Please see the "Contacts" listing below.
I copied it from the Office of the General Counsel page on the website of the NYC DOE.
http://schools.nyc.gov/
Contacts
Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, General Counsel
Charity Guerra, Chief Deputy
CounselCGuerra7@schools.nyc.gov
Judy Nathan, First Deputy
CounselJNathan@schools.nyc.gov
(Please note that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase's email address was omitted from the "Contacts" listing on the webpage, so I will put it here:
cjackson-chase@schools.nyc.gov)
I am concerned about your attached May 8, 2015 denial of my appeal, for the following reasons:
I am concerned about your attached May 8, 2015 denial of my appeal, for the following reasons:
General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra know very well that I have the facts on Ms. Guerra's jumping from the CSA to the DOE while defending a principal against the DOE in front of Arbitrator Joel Douglas. I believe that your denial of my appeal is directly related to my knowledge about that case. (Respondent J.K.)
And, I am currently suing Joseph A. Baranello, Esq., for FOIL violations. I am in the New York State Supreme Court and my complaint concerns unreasonable delays by Mr. Baranello and his office when I requested the contract of former Chancellor Dennis Walcott. I received nothing for almost two years.
You state in your letter that my appeal is denied.
What part of my appeal is denied? The part asking for a specific fee for records, which you now say you will give me a "cost breakdown" of (with respect to hard copies and/or recordings) "prior to the duplication and preparation"? I think I won that point.
Or are you denying that the highest-ranking attorney in the Office of the General Counsel, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq., at your location, held the meeting that I am requesting documents for, and that all the documents are physically located in the Office of the General Counsel?
I think we are both aware that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase (Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra's boss, and, therefore, yours as well) was the person who headlined the meeting on February 24, 2015, and obviously has all the documents I am requesting. I noticed that although I appealed to Ms. Jackson-Chase (who is also Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.'s boss, as well as being the same person who hired Charity Guerra, Esq., while she was defending Respondent J.K. against the DOE for CSA), she is not copied on the letter of "denial" of my appeal. Why is that?
I think we are both aware that General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase (Chief Deputy Counsel Charity Guerra's boss, and, therefore, yours as well) was the person who headlined the meeting on February 24, 2015, and obviously has all the documents I am requesting. I noticed that although I appealed to Ms. Jackson-Chase (who is also Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.'s boss, as well as being the same person who hired Charity Guerra, Esq., while she was defending Respondent J.K. against the DOE for CSA), she is not copied on the letter of "denial" of my appeal. Why is that?
I am also quite concerned about your statements below:
"However, at this time the exact volume of responsive hard copy records and/or recordings remains unclear. Once these records are located and reviewed, I direct the CRAO to provide a cost breakdown to you based on record type prior to the duplication and preparation of these records."
On March 17, 2015, I filed a freedom of information request for the documents, emails, videos, and all other relevant information concerning the February 24, 2015 meeting held in your office by Courtenaye Jackson-Chase and Adam Ross, UFT Attorney. The meeting is not for DOE personnel only, but the many different groups involved in NYC 3020-a arbitration. Two months later, you are claiming that you have no idea how many documents and/or recordings exist, and have to locate them. Did you ask Ms. Jackson-Chase?
Can you please spend five minutes on getting the documents and recordings I request from General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, and let me know within the next five business days? If not, why not?
I will then pay $.25/page and the cost of the CD.
Or, in the alternative, I suggest that the FOIL Unit use a file-sharing service such as www.dropbox.com to eliminate the need for a CD.
Here is some information about the service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Please clarify all of this for me, as I remain confused, and see only deliberate delay once again.
Thank you,
Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
ADVOCATZ
www.parentadvocates.org
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
www.nycrubberroomreporter.
cc: Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq.
Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.
Robert J. Freeman, Esq.
ADVOCATZ
www.parentadvocates.org
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
www.nycrubberroomreporter.
cc: Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq.
Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.
Robert J. Freeman, Esq.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Joe Baranello and His New Facebook Comment on the City, as Well as His Refusal to Answer Betsy Combier's FOIL Request #11,129
I have a problem with Joseph Baranello, NYC DOE Records Access Officer: he will not give me any records of a secret DOE meeting held on February 24, 2015 at Tweed, 52 Chambers Street, unless I pay someone $29.95/hr. for the storage media and emails connected with this meeting (see my related posts, below). He has never responded to me about how many documents I am supposed to pay for.
Tomorrow, the date I was to get the response to F11,129, will be the day that I Appeal to Mr. Baranello's Supervisor Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, if I do not get all the documents I requested.
By the way, take a look at Joe Baranello's Facebook page (he works for the City of New York):
and,
Meanwhile, I found the article on Federal Agencies hiding records requested under FOIA due to alleged budget constraints, interesting.
Federal agencies cannot avoid their obligation to disclosepublic records in modern electronic formats merely by invoking budgetary constraints, a judge has ruled in a rare decision exploring the scope of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act (“E-FOIA”).
Another Request Sent By Betsy Combier Concerning F11,129 For Records of the Mandatory 3020-a Meeting Held on February 24, 2015
Betsy Combier Asks FOIL Officer Joe BaranelloTo Clarify the Fees of $29.95/hr For F11,129
Betsy Combier Files a Freedom of Information Request to Obtain the Information Given Out At The NYC DOE February 24, 2015 Secret Meeting on 3020-a Hearings
By the way, take a look at Joe Baranello's Facebook page (he works for the City of New York):
and,
NYC Department of Education Attorney Joseph Baranello Uses Facebook To Comment About The "Douchebags" On The L Train
Meanwhile, I found the article on Federal Agencies hiding records requested under FOIA due to alleged budget constraints, interesting.
IRS Ordered to Make Non-Profit Form 990s Available In a Useful Electronic Format
LINKFederal agencies cannot avoid their obligation to disclose
United States District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California ordered on January 29, 2015, that the IRS had to produce a set of records to plaintiff Public.Resource.Org in the machine-readable format that the organization specified in its FOIA request. Public.Resource.Org v. IRS, 2015 WL 393736 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The court rejected the IRS’ argument that complying with the request would be unduly burdensome in light of its limited resources, explaining that the “fact that an agency may be under significant financial distress because it is underfunded does not excuse an agency’s duty to comply with the FOIA.”
The litigation concerns Public.Resource’s request for the electronically filed Form 990s for nine tax-exempt charitable organizations. Form 990s are filed by all non-profit organizations and include information about the finances and activities of nonprofit organizations . The IRS uses the information to enforce the rules governing nonprofits’ tax-free status. There is no dispute that Form 990s are public records already subject to disclosure, but the IRS refused to produce them in a machine-readable format, even where the records were originally e-filed with the agency in that manner. Instead, the IRS has only made the documents available in an image format akin to a low-resolution photograph.
Public.Resource, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public access to government records and the law, filed suit under E-FOIA, a 1996 amendment to the Freedom of Information Act which requires federal agencies to provide copies of public records “in any form or format requested… if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B).
Public.Resource argued that the IRS’ production of the records in a non-machine-readable image format frustrated efforts by watchdog groups, journalists, academics, and other government agencies to monitor the IRS’ performance by making it extremely difficult to process and analyze information from Form 990s. It submitted declarations about the public benefit of accessing Form 990s in machine-readable form from experts including its president, Carl Malamud, who has worked to make the IRS Exempt Organizations database more widely accessible while also scrutinizing the IRS’ breaches of taxpayer privacy; the former United States Deputy Chief Technology Officer; the CEO of Charity Navigator; and journalists with the Center for Investigative Reporting and ProPublica, among others. Public.Resource also invoked President Obama’s Executive Order 13642, Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information which sought to “ensure that data are released to the public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, and usable.” 78 Fed. Reg. 28111 (2013).
The IRS moved to dismiss the case at an early stage on the grounds that FOIA did not apply at all because the disclosure of Form 990s is governed by a separate provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Judge Orrick rejected this argument and denied the IRS’ motion to dismiss, holding that FOIA was not superseded, and that given the law’s “pro-disclosure purpose,” it cannot be supplanted by another federal statute absent express language to that effect. Public.Resource.Org v. IRS, — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2014 WL 2810499 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Following this threshold ruling, the IRS argued that it should not have to produce the records in the desired format because it would be too burdensome. While it did not dispute that it receives and maintains e-filed Form 990s in a machine-readable format, the IRS explained that it has an established process for converting the records into image files for processing, which includes redacting certain information which is exempt from public disclosure. The agency argued that it would have to develop new protocols and train new staff to redact sensitive information from Form 990s in machine-readable format. It estimated that such efforts would cost $6,200 to produce the nine Form 990s at issue in the desired format, although virtually all of its evidence focused on the overall costs of producing all Form 990s in a machine-readable form.
In his January 29 Order, Judge Orrick denied the IRS’ motion for summary judgment and granted Public.Resource’s cross-motion. The judge explained that under E-FOIA, to avoid disclosure in a requested format, the “agency’s evidence of burden… must be not only compelling, but also demonstrate that compliance with a request would imposes a significant burden or interference with the agency’s operation.” As a matter of law, the judge held, the IRS’ evidence failed to meet this burden: “That the IRS will have to develop new protocols and train staff to respond to Public.Resource.org’s request does not somehow excuse its need to comply with E–FOIA. If that was a valid excuse, anytime there was a request for production in a format that the agency has not accommodated before, the agency could argue undue burden.”
The court also dismissed the IRS’ argument that its existing production process was sufficient because Public.Resource’s format request was “unique.” As the court explained, the “IRS cannot defeat Public.Resource.org’s request for disclosure of information in the [machine-readable] format by relying on its own prior practices that are inconsistent with the E–FOIA amendments” – particularly because it was likely that the request was unique because the IRS had previously made clear that it would only produce the records in image format.
The court’s ruling was based on the burdens of producing the nine specific Form 990s at issue in the litigation. However, the judge suggested that after incurring these “one-time expenses” to establish the necessary protocols for producing machine-readable records, responding to similar requests in the future would be significantly less costly. The judge ordered the IRS to produce the requested records within 60 days of the order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)