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

 

As many of you know, I filed a Freedom of Information request to the DOE FOIL office, headed by Joe Baranello, for information about what has become a "secret policy meeting" for 3020-a arbitration:.
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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/04/betsy-combier-asks-foil-officer-joe.html

 

Joe Baranello Says Pay or You Dont Get To Play (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,

 

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/Offices/GeneralCounsel/default.htm
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:

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 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/Dropbox_%28service%29

 

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.blogspot.com

cc:  Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq.
      Joseph A. Baranello, Esq.
       Robert J. Freeman, Esq. 

 

 

 



 

Joe Baranello Says Pay or You Dont Get To Play (F11,129)

NYC DOE Joe Baranello

TO: Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, Esq.

       General Counsel

        FOIL Appeals Officer

 

       Robert Freeman

       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

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-f19021
19021
 

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

 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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/04/betsy-combier-asks-foil-officer-joe.html

 

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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/03/betsy-combier-files-freedom-of.html

betsy.combier@gmail.com

ADVOCATZ

parentadvocates.org

NYC Rubber Room Reporter

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.

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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/04/betsy-combier-asks-foil-officer-joe.html

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

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/03/betsy-combier-files-freedom-of.html

 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,

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

LINK

Federal agencies cannot avoid their obligation to disclose public 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”).

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.

Another Request Sent By Betsy Combier Concerning F11,129 For Records of the Mandatory 3020-a Meeting Held on February 24, 2015

RE: F11,129
response 2 messages Betsy Combier Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM
To: Baranello Joseph , Betsy Combier , rfreeman@dos.state.ny.us

Dear Mr. Baranello,

I sent you an email on April 14, 2015, requesting clarification of your demand that I tell you how much I was willing to pay your employee at $29.95/hr for documents, emails and records of the February 24, 2015 meeting on 3020-a arbitration held at your offices at 52 Chambers Street. Please see my blog, and the original email request forwarded above.

Betsy Combier Asks FOIL Officer Joe BaranelloTo Clarify the Fees of $29.95/hr For F11,129

http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015/04/betsy-combier-asks-foil-officer-joe.html

The Freedom of Information number for the requested meeting records has been given the

 

Attorney Adam Ross and Former UFT VP Mike Mendel

 FOIL # 11,129. This meeting was set up by Adam Ross, UFT lawyer, and by your colleague and Supervisor (also the Appeals Officer of FOIL requests) Courtenaye Jackson-Chase.

NYC DOE General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase

If I had simply given you an amount I would be willing to pay, I could be precluded from any documents above that fee, and denied my choice. For instance, if I told you I would pay for 10 hours, $299.50, then you could pick through the documents available, and tell me that the 10 hours were spent on retrieving those documents, thank you and goodbye. But I would be denied any other documents related to my request due to the fact that I said I would pay for 10 hours, and you would effectively withhold any related documents that you wanted to withhold and tell me I didnt want to pay for them, because I told you I would only pay for 10 hours of your employee's search, at $29.95/hour.

As this mandatory meeting on 3020-a included all the NYC Panel arbitrators, NYSUT attorneys and DOE attorneys involved (no private attorneys) and as this is not a NYC DOE agency-only meeting and this meeting is open to public access (the arbitrators and NYSUT attorneys are not DOE employees), I asked you to explain your fees of $29.95/hour to access the documents and emails related to the creation of this meeting.

In any case, I asked you to reply to me no later than 5PM on April 17, 2015, so that I could get the documents on April 22, 2015. I received no response.

 

Now that you did not answer my request for clarification, I am left with the assumption that you are not going to give me the documents, as I have not given you the amount I would be willing to pay.

 

Therefore, I am sending this email and posting this email on my blog as Notice to your Supervisor, Courtenaye Jackson-Chase, that on April 22, 2015 I will formally appeal all of this, and add this to my lawsuit against you currently on for depositions in the Supreme Court. See The Second "Who Are You Kidding Award" Goes To Dennis Walcott

 

I respectfully suggest that you are retaliating against me for making my request for documents of this February 24th meeting, for placing your Facebook page on my blog, and for suing you for the almost 2-year delay in obtaining the contract of former Chancellor Dennis Walcott.

Please give me the fee for documents, emails and records requested, with details of each and every document and email, no later than 5PM on April 20, 2015.

Thank you in advance,

Betsy Combier