By JIMMY LAWTON OGDENSBURG -- An Ogdensburg man who filed a $1 million notice of claim against the city has had a request for public records improperly delayed for months, but the city says it will …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
By JIMMY LAWTON
OGDENSBURG -- An Ogdensburg man who filed a $1 million notice of claim against the city has had a request for public records improperly delayed for months, but the city says it will now respond to the request.
At a Monday meeting, Richard Pratt questioned why a public records request he filed in April had not yet been filled or officially denied by the Ogdensburg, as required by law.
Pratt was requesting information regarding police policies related to drawing weapons and use of Tasers.
Ogdensburg City Manager Sarah Purdy told Pratt Monday at the council meeting that the city was advised not to answer the request by legal counsel, however she now says the city will respond to the request.
“What Mr. Pratt submitted to the city was a Public Records Inquest, which is different than a FOIL request. Perhaps he meant to submit a FOIL request, but that is not what he did. In any event, the City Clerk's Office received the notice of claim about a month before the Inquest was submitted, and the city attorney therefore advised that no answer to the inquest be made until the attorney assigned by our insurance carrier had reviewed all of the documents,” Purdy said in an emailed response. “That has now happened, and in fact we just learned from the attorney that we can respond to the Inquest, so staff is in the process of preparing a response, which will be reviewed before it is released.”
According to Robert Freeman, from the Committee on Open Government, Richard Pratt’s request was in fact covered under the Freedom of Information Request.
He said that if the written request for public records can be understood, it is sufficient under FOIL.
“If it looks like a FOIL request, and smells like a FOIL request it’s a FOIL request, regardless of what the letterhead says,” Freeman said.
When an agency receives a request, Freedom of Information Law states it has five business days to grant or deny access in whole or in part, or if more time is needed, to acknowledge the receipt of the request in writing and indicate an approximate date by which the agency will respond to the request, usually not more than 20 additional business days.
Pratt received no such response.