Sunshine Week - let it shine

Read this morning's article in the Northwest Herald (or online at www.nwherald.com) about Sunshine Week and how to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

Should information about city affairs be more readily available and sometimes even available upon request without a FOIA request?

A couple of years ago I contacted a Village government office (not Woodstock) for general information about a law on its books. I was told by a clerical employee that I had to file a FOIA request. Dumb! Stupid! A FOIA request to get a village ordinance that is public record?

All that stupid decisions and positions like that do is drive up the cost of government. A sweeping FOIA request can create hours of work for a clerical employee, review by one or more supervisors, possibly even by the village attorney and a lengthy response. Much of that could be avoided by answers that can properly be provided by telephone or allowing examination of general records or ordinances in-person, eliminating the need for a FOIA request.

Another needless expense is asking the City Attorney to respond to a FOIA request made to a City department. Woodstock has a Freedom of Information Act Officer at City Hall. It seems to me that a response should come from that person or from any FOIA officer of a department of the City; if that person feels the need to confer with the City Attorney before responding, I'm sure he'll do so. If the Requestor isn't happy with the response, then he can appeal to the designated person in the City who receives appeals. In Woodstock that's the City Manager.

Why would the City of Woodstock incur expense to have the City Attorney answer a FOIA request? Can't the City get it right without paying its attorney to send it? But to direct the City Attorney actually to respond on behalf of the City? All that does is unnecessarily drive up the legal bills of the City.

Now this gets me thinking about who is the proper person for any appeal to the response from the City Attorney. Is that still the City Manager? I would consider that to be the case.

At last Thursday's Special Meeting of the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, Northwest Herald reporter Brian Slupski asked what the charges were that had resulted in the Board's decision to suspend a police officer without pay. Now that's a pretty basic and reasonable question.

And the answer from the Board? File a FOIA request. When he tried to file it on the spot, Brian was referred first to the police chief, who was not there, and then with Mr. McArdle in the out-sourced City Attorney's office.

Which, of course, raises another question? Why wasn't the police chief at the BOFPC meeting to state his accusations against the officer? And why didn't the BOFPC call a hearing FIRST, before suspending the officer?

The Minutes of the March 2nd BOFPC meeting should have been approved at the March 12th meeting. They weren't, because "someone" forgot to put Minutes' approval on the Agenda. Apparently, the Agenda was not prepared by the person who normally prepares it. This is a routine provision of Agendas. Was there some nefarious reason that the Approval of Minutes step was omitted from the March 12th Agenda? Delay, delay, delay.

Sunshine Week - let it shine!