As some of you may have read last week from various sources, the City Council considered the mayor's nominations and made their own nominations for the newly created Freedom of Information Advisory Board at its Monday meeting. As seems to be par for the course, there was confusion over who could nominate and appoint members to the Board. Yours truly was one of the potential nominees, courtesy of Councilman Luis Cotto. On the Thursday before last, I submitted my resume to Luis. The next day, I received an email from one Eddie Perez with the subject line "HOLD: Meeting w/Emily Gianquinto (FOI Commission)," and was asked to forward a "letter of intent" to the mayor in advance of my meeting, which was scheduled for Thursday, March 12.  

That's right, boys and girls, I was scheduled for a one-on-one meeting with Mr. Perez himself last week, for a whole thirty minutes. I was thrilled. I figured, sure, he'll want to hear about my thoughts on FOI, etc, but how long could that take? We had a whole thirty minutes! Finally, I could ask him the questions that keep me up at night. WHY does the city subsidize Northland, despite that corporation's willingness to simply let so much downtown property remain vacant? When is Front Street going to be finished? Why can't the city keep Keney Park cleaner, and maybe replace the rusted basketball hoops and dangerous-looking tennis courts? What the hell was the mayor thinking when he wasted city resources on that whole let's-put-a-school-smack-in-the-middle-of-a-traffic-nightmare-and-directly-adjacent-to-the-highway-on-land-the-city-doesn't-even-own debacle last year?

Turns out that the meeting was not to be. Apparently, the Council had to appoint three people to the Board last Monday. That would be March 9. The mayor nominated two people at that meeting. My name was not one of them, which isn't surprising since my meeting with Perez was scheduled for March 12. Councilman Cotto nominated me at the meeting and, according to Heather Brandon over at Urban Compass, called me "fresh blood" (thanks?), but it seems that having a WFP Council member nominate a Democrat doesn't go over well, even with Dem Councilman Matt Ritter vouching for me (we know each other from law school). So alas, my meeting with Eddie was unceremoniously canceled via an email with the subject line "Canceled: HOLD: Meeting w/Emily Gianquinto (FOI Commission)." Sigh.

Once again, it seems like confusion reigned in Council chambers and at the Mayor's office. If the Board was supposed to be appointed on March 9, WHY would Perez schedule a meeting with a potential nominee on March 12? To humor the Council member who nominated me? Or because he didn't know that the Board needed to approve nominations Monday? To make things even weirder, I got an email at 10:40am that seemed to be confirming my Thursday meeting: "Updated: HOLD: Meeting w/Emily Gianquinto (FOI Commission)." If the mayor really didn't know that the Council needed to approve three names Monday night, how last-minute were his nominations?

I'm disappointed that I didn't get my meeting, but I'm also disappointed in the haphazard process and this missed opportunity. I've been looking at getting more involved with the city in some way, and generally, the thought of sitting on a board or commission or committee doesn't interest me in the slightest. All those people talking at each other and getting next to nothing done, tabling issues over and over again, referring things to subcommittees... Argh. But this Board sounded like a potentially great opportunity to actually DO something. And to do something useful, not just generate a report or study or draft or resolution, blah blah blah.

The Board only has three members, and its purpose is to both advise and educate municipal employees and officials on the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, provide information to members of the public seeking public records, and "attempt to facilitate the resolution of freedom of information disputes with agencies." If the members of the Board take their responsibilities seriously, it could save the city some money. Right now, it seems like city employees routinely refuse to provide information that should be public. When those denials are appealed to the state FOI Commission, the city pays to defend its decision. If the state Commission rules against the city, it can appeal to the Superior Court, again paying attorneys to defend its decision to deny access.

I'm not saying that all FOI requests should be honored. There are valid reasons for denying some requests; sometimes a request truly is too burdensome for the city or is targeted at documents that are exempt from disclosure (plans of municipal buildings, for example). But from what I've seen, the city spends way too much money defending decisions to deny access to documents.

For instance, the state Commission recently issued decisions requiring the city to turn over all documents provided to the grand jury investigating corruption at City Hall. The city argued that the documents were part of an ongoing investigation and therefore weren't public. Who does that argument protect? Seems to me it's intended to protect the city officials who are implicated in the documents. That's an example of the city using FOIA as a shield to protect certain individuals, and I hope that the Board strongly advises against such actions in the future. Given the current state of city government and the nature of recent investigations, I expect the media to be pushing for more and more access to relevant documents, and I hope the Board will use its advisory role to make sure that future decisions also take into account the ultimate cost to the taxpayers.

The Board member's terms are staggered, so perhaps I'll look into getting appointed again when the first term expires. Or maybe I'll find another board or commission I'm interested in working on. Which means keep an eye out, loyal readers, for the continued saga of EmGee and Eddie...