Freedom of Information Law Request for Emails Between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin Regarding Employment as Chief with the Village of Millbrook

Town of Fishkill Clerk's Office
807 Route 52
Fishkill, NY 12524

Subject: Freedom of Information Law Request for Emails Between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin Regarding Employment as Chief with the Village of Millbrook

Dear Public Information Officer,

I am writing as an investigative journalist under the provisions of the New York Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90), seeking access to records of email correspondence between Ozzy Albra, Supervisor of the Town of Fishkill, and Chief Keith Dworkin, Chief of Police of the Town of Fishkill, specifically concerning Chief Dworkin's employment with the Village of Millbrook.

Requested Records:

Digital Documents:

Emails: All email correspondence sent and received between Ozzy Albra (supervisor@fishkill-ny.gov) and Chief Keith Dworkin (chiefofpolice@fishkillpd.org) regarding Chief Keith Dworkin's employment status, duties, responsibilities, and any discussions or decisions related to his role as police chief with the Village of Millbrook.

Legal support: Buffalo News v. Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp., 601 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) affirms the public's right to access records related to government contracts and expenditures.

Attachments: Any and all attachments included in the email correspondence between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin related to his employment as police chief with the Village of Millbrook.

Legal support: Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 605 N.E.2d 1344 (N.Y. 1992) supports the public's right to access records related to public employees' job performance and conduct.

Related Correspondence: Any additional email correspondence involving Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin that pertains to their communication about Chief Dworkin's employment with the Village of Millbrook, including but not limited to discussions about potential conflicts of interest, dual employment, and any related policies or guidelines.

Legal support: Gannett Co. v. City of Rochester, 29 N.Y.2d 97 (1971) confirms the public's right to access records related to government activities and decisions.

Employment Discussions: All email correspondence discussing the financial implications, budget adjustments, or staffing considerations related to Chief Keith Dworkin's employment with the Village of Millbrook.

Legal support: Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980) emphasizes the importance of public access to records concerning the actions of public officials and the operations of government.

Legal Precedents and Public Interest Justification:

The requested information is of significant public interest, particularly concerning government operations and the ethical considerations of public officials. The release of these records will enhance public understanding and facilitate informed community oversight.

Fees and Document Delivery:

Please inform me of any potential fees associated with the processing of this request. I request a waiver of all fees as this disclosure is primarily in the public interest, contributing substantially to the understanding of government operations and is not for commercial purposes. I prefer to receive the documents electronically, via email or on a CD-ROM if electronic transfer is impractical.

Response Time and Contact:

I anticipate your response within the statutory timeframe prescribed by law. Should you require any clarification or have questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the provided phone number or email address.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. I look forward to your prompt and thorough handling of this request, as dictated by applicable laws and regulations.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter

From: Jordan Lassiter
Date: June 14, 2024

Subject: Appeal of FOIL Denial - Reference #0140-2024

To: Rebecca Tompkins
Records Access Officer
Town of Fishkill
807 Route 52
Fishkill, NY 12524

Dear Ms. Tompkins,

I am writing to appeal the denial of my FOIL request, Reference #0140-2024, for emails between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin regarding Chief Dworkin’s employment with the Village of Millbrook. The response cited an exemption for inter-departmental and intra-departmental communications under FOIL.

Upon review, I believe this denial is not in compliance with New York’s Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90) and relevant case law. The law mandates that all agency records are presumed open to the public unless they fall squarely within one of the specific exemptions. The exemption cited in your response is overly broad and misapplied in this context.

1. Buffalo News v. Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp., 601 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993): This case underscores the principle that records related to public officials’ duties and employment are subject to disclosure, particularly when public interest is at stake. The requested emails pertain to Chief Dworkin’s public employment, which is a matter of significant public concern.
2. Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 605 N.E.2d 1344 (N.Y. 1992): The court in this case reinforced the public’s right to access records that shed light on public employees’ job performance and conduct. The denial of access to emails that discuss Chief Dworkin’s dual employment contradicts this precedent.
3. Gannett Co. v. City of Rochester, 29 N.Y.2d 97 (1971): This ruling emphasizes that government activities and decisions must be transparent to the public. The communications between Mr. Albra and Chief Dworkin about employment matters clearly fall within this scope.
4. Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980): The court highlighted the necessity for public access to records concerning the actions of public officials. The emails in question are integral to understanding the operational decisions of the Town of Fishkill and any potential conflicts of interest.

Given these legal precedents, the denial of my request is not supported by the statute or case law. I urge you to reconsider the decision and provide the requested records. This information is vital for public understanding and oversight of government operations, and withholding it undermines the principles of transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, if any portion of the requested emails must remain exempt, I request an index of the redacted portions as required by FOIL. This index should include a description of each redacted item, the reason for its redaction, and the specific exemption under which the redaction is claimed.

I request a detailed explanation if any part of the records must remain exempt, specifically citing the applicable exemptions and providing a redacted version of the documents with non-exempt information disclosed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a prompt response.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter
Investigative Journalist

From: Jordan Lassiter
Date: June 14, 2024

Subject: Freedom of Information Law Request: Policies and Procedures for FOIL Exemption Determinations

To: Records Access Officer
Town of Fishkill
807 Route 52
Fishkill, NY 12524

Dear Records Access Officer,

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90), I hereby request access to the following records related to the Town of Fishkill’s handling of FOIL requests and exemption determinations:

1. Policies and Procedures: All documents detailing the policies and procedures used by the Town of Fishkill to determine FOIL exemptions, including any internal guidelines, manuals, or training materials provided to staff responsible for processing FOIL requests.
2. Exemption Criteria: Any documentation outlining the criteria and standards applied when deciding whether a particular record or portion of a record qualifies for an exemption under FOIL.
3. Training Records: Records of any training sessions or workshops conducted for staff on the topic of FOIL request handling and exemption determination, including dates, agendas, and materials used or distributed during such training.
4. Decision Records: Any internal communications, memoranda, or meeting notes discussing specific FOIL requests and the decision-making process regarding the application of exemptions. This includes communications involving the Records Access Officer, legal counsel, or other relevant officials. Specifically, please include any email communications related to my FOIL request Reference #0140-2024 for emails between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin regarding Chief Dworkin’s employment with the Village of Millbrook.
5. Precedent Records: Copies of previous FOIL request responses where exemptions were applied, including the justifications provided for each exemption, to understand how similar requests have been handled historically.

This information is essential to understand the Town of Fishkill’s approach to transparency and public access to information. It will contribute to the public’s ability to assess the fairness and consistency of FOIL request handling.

Please inform me of any potential fees associated with the processing of this request. I request a waiver of all fees as this disclosure is primarily in the public interest, contributing substantially to the understanding of government operations and is not for commercial purposes. I prefer to receive the documents electronically, via email or on a CD-ROM if electronic transfer is impractical.

I anticipate your response within the statutory timeframe prescribed by law. Should you require any clarification or have questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the provided phone number or email address.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation. I look forward to your prompt and thorough handling of this request.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter

Sorry please disregard last email

From: Jordan Lassiter
Date: June 14, 2024

Subject: Appeal of FOIL Denial - Reference #0140-2024

To: Rebecca Tompkins
Records Access Officer
Town of Fishkill
807 Route 52
Fishkill, NY 12524

Dear Ms. Tompkins,

I am writing to appeal the denial of my FOIL request, Reference #0140-2024, for emails between Ozzy Albra and Chief Keith Dworkin regarding Chief Dworkin’s employment with the Village of Millbrook. The response cited an exemption for inter-departmental and intra-departmental communications under FOIL.

Upon review, I believe this denial is not in compliance with New York’s Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §§ 84-90) and relevant case law. The law mandates that all agency records are presumed open to the public unless they fall squarely within one of the specific exemptions. The exemption cited in your response is overly broad and misapplied in this context.

1. Buffalo News v. Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp., 601 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993): This case underscores the principle that records related to public officials’ duties and employment are subject to disclosure, particularly when public interest is at stake. The requested emails pertain to Chief Dworkin’s public employment, which is a matter of significant public concern.
2. Capital Newspapers v. Whalen, 605 N.E.2d 1344 (N.Y. 1992): The court in this case reinforced the public’s right to access records that shed light on public employees’ job performance and conduct. The denial of access to emails that discuss Chief Dworkin’s dual employment contradicts this precedent.
3. Gannett Co. v. City of Rochester, 29 N.Y.2d 97 (1971): This ruling emphasizes that government activities and decisions must be transparent to the public. The communications between Mr. Albra and Chief Dworkin about employment matters clearly fall within this scope.
4. Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 N.Y.2d 575 (1980): The court highlighted the necessity for public access to records concerning the actions of public officials. The emails in question are integral to understanding the operational decisions of the Town of Fishkill and any potential conflicts of interest.

Given these legal precedents, the denial of my request is not supported by the statute or case law. I urge you to reconsider the decision and provide the requested records. This information is vital for public understanding and oversight of government operations, and withholding it undermines the principles of transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, if any portion of the requested emails must remain exempt, I request an index of the redacted portions as required by FOIL. This index should include a description of each redacted item, the reason for its redaction, and the specific exemption under which the redaction is claimed.

I request a detailed explanation if any part of the records must remain exempt, specifically citing the applicable exemptions and providing a redacted version of the documents with non-exempt information disclosed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a prompt response.

Sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter
Investigative Journalist