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

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

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



I decided that I should clarify with Records Access Officer Joe Baranello exactly what I would pay for, and who I would be hiring, (at $29.95/hr) in order to obtain the secret rules handed out at the Plenary meeting for the DOE/NYSUT/UFT folk who represent members at 3020-a:

Joe Baranello

Dear Mr. Baranello,

I am responding to your email dated March 25, 2015 in which you stated I must pay $29.95 for the preparation of digital records above two hours that relate to my request in F11,129. See my post on my blog:

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

You ask what the maximum amount is that I am willing to pay to the person you hire to prepare these records and for the storage media.

 I need more information in order to give you my response:

1. I need to know the number of records responsive to my request and the amount you charge to me for full access before I decide what I am willing to pay. 

2. I also need to know exactly what records you will charge me for - emails? agenda? invitees? This meeting included several groups, NYSUT/UFT, DOE, and Arbitrators , therefore this meeting was not only for Department of Education employees. What redactions are relevant to Public Officer's Law 87? Please be specific. I also understand that you can charge me 25 cents for each page - do you add the $29.95/hr to this, and where are you authorized within the Law to do this, if you charge the $29.95/hr in addition to the $.25/page?
 

3. I need to know who the person is who will be paid by me at $29.95/hour. Please give
me this person's full name, job title, and daily duties. I also need to know whether or not there is any person willing to do those same duties at $8/, or $9/hr, and whether you sought to find any such individual, and where you posted the job description.

4. In your demand that I pay for the cost of storage media, please describe exactly what you mean by this. What is the "storage media" that I have to pay for? Please give any and all details.

5. Please describe to me what costs are involved in reproducing records that are maintained electronically.  

6. Please tell me why I have to pay a person $29.95 to forward electronic documents via email to me, as you no doubt have people on staff who are already being paid to assist you in granting FOIL requests.

7. Please describe what "internal communications" you refer to, as the February 24, 2015 meeting was not a meeting of DOE employees, but also UFT, NYSUT, and arbitration panel members.

 Please take note that I am willing to pay for the records of the meeting held by your colleague Courtenaye Jackson-Chase at Tweed at 4PM of February 24, 2015 and that I intend on writing the Committee on Open Government to ask for an opinion. I advise you not to close this request, I am simply asking questions to clarify your very vague response.

 Please reply to this email in its entirety no later than 5PM on friday, April 17, 2015, so that I can receive all the documents/emails/powerpoint/video/presentations on or before April 22, 2015.

 Thank you for your prompt response.

 Sincerely,

Betsy Combier

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials
Editor, Parentadvocates.org