BFPE admits that they discuss cases in emails

[davidmcbeth]

Was just doing a regular records request regarding the BFPE ... but they wanted to charge me some $$$ to redact names of cases that board members were discussing via emails being bounced back and forth.

What is wrong with public officials in this state? Why are they compelled to violate open meetings laws?

I have yet to see a public body that has meetings NOT violate our open meeting laws.

So beware folks that go before the BFPE; your case may have been discussed/debated/deliberated by the board members before you even have a chance to say one word.

 

[FMJ]

Wow! Can you post an example? Interesting...

 

[davidmcbeth]

Wow! Can you post an example? Interesting...

I wish !

I asked for BFPE emails ... got a reply that they wanted to charge me 50 bucks for the records than needed to be redacted (appellant's names) in accordance with the Peruta v. FOI Commission case HHB CV-13-5015745-S, decided 7 NOV 13.

I tossed back an email that they should not even have had deliberations via email (violation of the open meetings provisions of the Act) ... so I don't see why I have to pay to gather records regarding meetings that violate the Act.

I am going to the BFPE next week to further discuss.

I informed the BFPE that the exemption that was decided in the Peruta case are just that, exemptions. And that the agency can still provide me with unredacted records if they choose as agencies are not required to take advantage of redactions. The BFPE was told by a FOI Commission attny that they MUST redact but the law says otherwise and when I called the same FOI attny, she did a 180 after I informed her that the records are records of a meeting that violates the Act then she said that she did not know if it was appropriate to charge fees in my specific set of circumstances...so I'll argue as to why should I pay fees.

I only asked to inspect the records, not for copies...and the appropriateness of charging copy fees for redaction is based on a handful of prior FOI Commission cases and all of them are distinguishable from the nature of the records here.

A demand for inappropriate fees is a denial to access to records under the Act. One can either a) pay the fee and ask the FOI Commission for a refund of the charges [you get the records but it costs cash] or b) consider the request for fees to be a denial.

I'm thinking about asking for a handful of records instead of all 83 emails. I would just file a new request, no biggie but it would allow them to cherry pick. And then file a second request asking for the remaining ones ... and then file a complaint. Lots of options.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Wow! Can you post an example? Interesting...

If ya got 50 bucks to burn ... you can get them ... or just wait for me to do what I do....

 

[FMJ]

So you don't have an example then? I thought you said that they admitted to discussing cases before they were heard? How could they admit it if you don't have the documents yet? I'm totally confused.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So you don't have an example then? I thought you said that they admitted to discussing cases before they were heard? How could they admit it if you don't have the documents yet? I'm totally confused.

They told me that they had to redact the names of litigants that were being discussed in emails discussing their cases being sent back and forth between board members.

That's how one knows that they were discussing cases behind closed door....they told me that this was a reason for needing to redact.

 

[FMJ]

They told me that they had to redact the names of litigants that were being discussed in emails discussing their cases being sent back and forth between board members.

That's how one knows that they were discussing cases behind closed door....they told me that this was a reason for needing to redact.

Oh, so they didn't actually admit to discussing cases, you are just assuming that based upon their need to redact? Oh, I got it now, but that is a far cry from them admitting to discussing cases before hearings. I am puzzled. Is there something else?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Oh, so they didn't actually admit to discussing cases, you are just assuming that based upon their need to redact? Oh, I got it now, but that is a far cry from them admitting to discussing cases before hearings. I am puzzled. Is there something else?

The board did admit to me that they discussed cases .. I have filed a new foia request right to that point.

And I filed a complaint today regarding a secret meeting I discovered that the board held via emails being bounced back and forth.

I'll tell ya what.. rosensweig thinks that most people are lying to the board with their testimony....he's a wacko from my reading of his emails.

 

[Good Citizen]

Dicussions w/the Board! ???

I am going to the BFPE next week to further discuss.

I don't understand how are you going to address the board they have cases that are heard period..... I didn't know they were open for public comments/ debate, unless you are going there and talk to Sue, but U can Do that right over the Phone??

 

[FMJ]

The board did admit to me that they discussed cases .. I have filed a new foia request right to that point.

And I filed a complaint today regarding a secret meeting I discovered that the board held via emails being bounced back and forth.

I'll tell ya what.. rosensweig thinks that most people are lying to the board with their testimony....he's a wacko from my reading of his emails.

Secret meeting? Geez, about what? Interesting...

 

[davidmcbeth]

Secret meeting? Geez, about what? Interesting...

See paragraph of the complaint ... attched

 

[FMJ]

I see the allegation but, what did they alleged speak about? If it was what to have for lunch, that is hardly of concern. But something of substance? I remain puzzled. I see allegations but no actual content. At this point, I don't know what to believe. I ask and ask and ask, but get nothing. What were they discussing? Are we to ever find out?