Mayor’s lack of leadership continues to cost taxpayers money over copies;
Police Department loses much needed funding:
Mayor Stewart has yet to show any leadership over an issue involving giving free photocopies of city documents to anyone who requests them. The council passed an ordinance proposed by Alderman Phil Sherwood to exempt the city fees on anyone requesting up to 40 pages per day, which amounts to $20 per day per person. This certainly creates a potential for abuse because under the current ordinance, anyone who feels like it can go to a city agency and request 40 pages of copies every day, all at the expense of the taxpayers! State law allows municipalities to charge up to $.50 per page for these copies, but this ordinance that Sherwood succeeded in passing makes such requests free.
As a result, the police department was forced to start giving out free copies of reports beginning July 1. Although no one seems to be able to identify the true cost to the police department, an article in The Herald (“Subcommittee recommends FOI ordinance amendment” 10/02/08) quoted an estimated $700 per month cost, however an article in The Courant (“New Britain Regulations Cost Police Department $738” 8/21/08) reported that the police department receives 18,696 requests for copies annually. If the department were allowed to charge the statutory $.50 per page, and with most police department records requests being motor vehicle accident reports consisting of two pages, that would amount to an estimated $18,696.00 in lost revenue to the police department annually. This is a considerable amount of money that could be available to purchase badly needed equipment for our police officers. Forcing the Chief to operate with such a large shortfall in his budget could even place our police officers in danger by forcing them to work with inadequate or outdated equipment.
Alderman Sherwood has proposed an amendment that would exempt the police department from the ordinance which would allow the police to start charging the public for copies, but not insurance companies. I am mystified at what logic there could be in forcing the citizens to foot the bill for copies requested by insurance companies, but at the same time making citizens dig into their pockets to pay for their own copies. The amendment should be changed to exempt the police department entirely and allow them to start charging everyone for copies, or the FOI ordinance should be repealed.
Because of its potential for abuse, it would appear that the most responsible action would be to repeal the FOI ordinance completely, especially since the state already provides the necessary FOI regulations by statute. What seems really clear is it is time for the mayor to step up to the plate and show some leadership by taking a strong stand on this issue.
Alderman Sherwood it appears you have to get your act together.
ReplyDeletejust like everything else with the liberals, they want everything free, which means that the guy struggling to pay his mortgage has to pay for an insurance company to get free reports.
ReplyDeletetoo bad this isn't there election. there would probly be some surprises.
ReplyDeletemaybe if the democrats on the council THOUGHT before putting through resolutions, the mayor would not need to do anything.
ReplyDeleteFrank, thank you for writing about this. There are few reasons for supporting this that your post did not touch upon.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, it is true that the Council passed at FOI Resolution, unanimously in fact, that reinforced citizens rights to attend meetings and access public information. The ordinance also provided the public with the right to access public information without charging the typical copying fees. State FOI laws allow municipalities to waive copy fees. The FOI laws at the federal and state level also stipulate that copying fees may be waived it is deemed to be in the public interest.
Eric Turner and Colleen Murphy from the state FOI Commission also testified in front of the Common Council in favor of the ordinance and it is said is using it as a model for other towns in CT who may want to reduce barriers to access public info.
It's important to know what motivated myself to submit such an ordinance. It was not random. At the time, the City of New Britain had more FOI complaints associated with it than any other community. Regardless to whether or not there was merit to these complaints it pointed to the lack or understanding and the appearance the city was not acting properly.
One concern raised at the time, specifically by Alderman Salvio, was that this ordinance would cause abuse. In other words, droves of people would come down to city hall demanding "free copies" just because they can, whether they need them or not. Technically this could happen. Technically the sun could burn out within a year as well but there has been no sign of either. In fact in speaking with the officials at the Police department, and when asked if they noticed addition requests since the ordinance passed, they said no.
That being said, I was not happy to learn that most of the docs given out at the police station are said to be accident reports, and that they are given not to taxpayers per say but insurance companies. So we moved forward to try to find a way to address this. We knew when we passed this that we would likely have to revisit the resolution in some as we were the first town in CT to do this. We were also not given any hard numbers from departments except for the City Clerks office which showed a hysterically low level of copies that would fall under the fee waiver.
I do not support exempting the police department from the FOI ordinance just because of one document, the accident reports. Lets exempt that one document. That way, victim of crimes could still continue to have access to public information without having to pay. Why should victims of crimes, who most likely are taxpayers, have their pockets picked just to get a copy of the report?
Ideally, the amendment could be written to only waive fees for resident of new britian, leaving others like insurance companies or folks from avon to pay the fees. But I was instructed that there might be legal issues to doing that way from the FOI Commission themselves.
So in response to this, last Wednesday, the Admin Finance and Law Committee unanimously passed an amendment that will allow the mayor to waive certain documents from the fee waiver. It set up reasonable stipulations as to the criteria to determine those docs. If the council passes this than the Mayor right away can make sure this document in the police department or any other docs we don't know about are exempted from the FOI Ordinance. Some have suggest I was crazy for allowing the mayor, just one person, to decide these issues but frankly this is an administrative issue and the council should get overly involved in administrative issues.
It's clear that most documents are sought by members of the public from right here in NEw Britain. Why do people continue to say they're getting free copies? They paid for them already, we should not be picking their pockets for paper they already bought.
Its also important to understand that this FOI Ordinance that we passed that allows for certain copy fees to be waived does not apply to all public docs but only certain ones under a certain fee schedule set by the state. The city will continue to make thousands of dollars if not more on copies for things like birth certificates, marriage licenses, land records, etc.
I'm proud to have voted for this FOI ordinance that reminds the public that they have a right to attend public meetings, see agendas and have access public information.
Hopefully this amendment will be adopted by the council, ensuring that members of the public will continue to benefit from this open government legislation while proactively identifying documents such as accident reports they may allow the city to raise revenue from entities like insurance companies.
Phil Sherwood
If the state already allows municipalities to waive fees, then why can't we leave it up to the individual departments to determine when it is appropriate to waive a fee (for example a crime victim who is poor etc) or is it that we don't trust our city employees to be able to make a decision?
ReplyDeleteLegally it's important to have uniformity in how FOI is applied. For example, it is perfectly fine for a city not to charge for documents if a reporter asks for them. However, they must be willing to give those documents free to multiple reporters and not have different standards in that way. It should not be case by case that determines whether fees get waived, it should be doc by doc. Legally, that is the cleanest way to do it. I agree with you that it should be department heads or the mayor carrying out these administrative tasks. The strike all amendment that I offered and passed allows the mayor to do just that essentially at the request of the department head. All the council wants in return is a report letting us know which docs are being waived so that everything is seen as transparent.
ReplyDeleteAlso, state law says that if anyone cannot pay the copy feels they legally must be provided. Most people don't know that. And that was another reason I made sure that language was in the New Britain ordinance. It's important that people know there rights and I've been impressed how many of my constituents have called me with a concern having already done a fair amount of research online. Having in the city ordinances the hosts of rights that we have as members of the public is not an egregious action as some have to tried to imply.
I strongly dislike insurance companies and want to make sure they are being charged for copies while preserving victims rights to access records without getting charged.
The dems on the Council did THINK before doing this, because like all liberals, they think government should control all aspects of our lives and that the government should provid everyone with everything they need and all for FREE! Want more free stuff that we all have to pay for, just keep voting for those Democrats.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know where the Mayor stands on this issue? Did you take a ride to the golf course, or has he installed a phone on his little golf cart?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, we have a week mayor form of government with the council having all the juice. The mayor is basically a figurehead, a ribbon cutter.
ReplyDeleteWe have a strong Mayor form of government. Stronger than most cities that say that have a strong form of government. Even though it appears the Mayor and I have traded barbs bordering on the personal, I think it is a good system.
ReplyDeleteI understand, we have a strong mayor form of government, it is just this mayor who is weak.
ReplyDeleteI hear he does have a strong golf game.
ReplyDeleteI have gotten reports from the Police department, including an accident report, and another where I could have charged someone with filing a false report against me. Each time, it cost me $1 per report, a cost I feel was well worth it. The insurance companies can afford to pay for any reports they need; why charge the taxpayers for information? Let individuals pay for any reports they may need. Alderman Sherwood's resolution should be repealed.
ReplyDeleteThank you Ald. Sherwood. You are doing a good service to the public, here, and you are really sticking up for New Britain taxpayers. The state freedom of information laws are supposed to protect the ability of the public to know what our government is doing. And it is easy to see how charging $.50 per page can add up ($20 or 40 sheets of paper???) and serve as a barrier to people getting public information they have a right to have. (Kinkos still charges 8 cents or so a copy, so why would NB city hall want to charge NB taxpayers 50 cents a page?)
ReplyDeleteThis story should be corrected based on what Sherwood's proposal really does do. Sherwood is doing a good job protecting the public's right to freedom of information and the taxpayers' right to know how their money is being spent. The freedom of information ordinance should stay. And Sherwood's amendment to it is good common sense.
As reported in The Herald 10/02/08 Mayor Tim Stewart indicated that he had his own suspicions about Phil Sherwood's motives for making the new FOI ordinance amendment.
ReplyDeleteThat Sherwood got egg on his face because he is a do-gooder and the mayor blasted the entire FIO ordinance and the council for passing it and that now the council are trying to backtrack on it.
just another way to stick it to us taxpayers
ReplyDeleteThe ordinance should go and Sherwood with it!
ReplyDeleteI think Sherwood is here to stay. Republicans might be better off thinking of ways to run good candidates of our own if we want change. Like him or hate him, Sherwood could probably win big if he ran at at large with his knowledge of campaigns. We need more people like Bozek willing to challenge these guys.
ReplyDeletewhy, does Sherwood support moving the minorities to Berlin and Farmington?
ReplyDeletewe pay enough damn taxes. these libs never get enough and are always looking for another way to pick our pockets.
ReplyDeleteI agree, we pay too much in taxes. So why bother charging taxpayers for paper they already bought.
ReplyDeletebecause people who pay taxes in New Britain will be paying for free copies for people who pay their taxes in Newington, Berlin, Farmington, Hartford, etc, and also for those rich insurance companies and all at the expense of the home owners of New Britain. Ald. Sherwood really missed the boat on this one.
ReplyDeletemaybe they should make it free for NB residents and everyone else pays.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Sherwood learned a valuable lesson from all this nonsense:
ReplyDelete"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
"maybe they should make it free for NB residents and everyone else pays."
ReplyDeleteThat's what I originally wanted to do, unfortunately both Corp Counsel and State FOI Staff instructed me there are legal issues with creating a second tier system for public information. Cities can exclude certain documents from copying fees but can't excluded specifically victims of crimes, taxpayers, or New Britain residents.
Aside from those legal issues, one of the important principles behind FOI laws is allowing individuals to access, seek or scan documents anonymously. Requesting or suggesting they prove where they are from could potentially in itself create a chilling affect for those who wish to exercise their legally right to access public information anonymously.
Mr. Sherwodd,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should listen to the advise of the old teacher and have left well enough alone.
THE MAYOR HAS BEEN QUOTED AS NOT HAVING ANY AUTHORITY OVER THIS ISSUE AS IT WAS THE COUNCIL WHO PASSED THIS MEASURE (WITH HIS SIGNATURE OF COURSE, BUT IF HE WAS REALLY AGAINST IT, COULDN'T HE HAVE VETOED IT, OR DOES HE LACK THE TESTICULAR FORTITUDE FOR SUCH AN ACTION?
ReplyDeleteVery funny indeed, somebody actually wants TIMMY THE INVERTEBRATE to take a stand on something.
ReplyDeletethese liberals just keep finding more ways to give everything free and then we have to pay the bill.
ReplyDeletePhil isn't a bad guy, he fights with the mayor over everything.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Sherwood did not like the advice that he got from New Britain City Lawyer Mary Pokorski about the FOI ordinance he had written by himself (He’s now a Lawyer) putting the Mayor in charge of public FOI requests.
ReplyDeleteIf Phil Sherwood like Abe Lincoln was a reader of the law. If he had a subscription to CONNECTICUT REPORTS – CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED in the SUPREME COURT of the State of Connecticut and being reader of Case Law he would be standing on solid concrete with his FOI Ordinances instead of sinking into quick sand?
The Connecticut Court Reporter motto is that The Reporter would esteem it a favor if anyone noticing any error in the Advance Part of Reports would at once inform him, so that it may be corrected in the final bound-volume printed edition.
The problem is that Sherwood did not seek an opinion from The Court Reporter or Honest Abe Lincoln?
Why should the press not pay for copies, and everyone else should have to pay? Newspapers, TV, radio are "for profit" users of this information, thus let them pay.
ReplyDeleteLacking leadership is the understatement of the century.
ReplyDeletejust wonderin, sounds like Sherwood is trying to take care of his ultra liberal buddies in the media by giving them free copies and making the rest of us pay for it, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteWhat do expect from these guys, they just keep finding more ways for us to pay for more stuff.
ReplyDeleteseems like they messed it so bad that even if they try to fix it they will mess it up even more
ReplyDeleteWOW, another place where this mayor demonstrates his incompetence.
ReplyDelete