Withholding details on suspensions makes city look guilty
Freedom of information laws have been my best friends throughout my career, but sometimes they are also my worst enemy.
Since 1974, New York state has had a law on its books that requires all state, county and municipal government entities, as well as school districts and other public bodies, to make available to the public all documents generated by those groups unless there is a compelling reason to keep them confidential. Though to this day there are efforts to subvert the law, most notably in recent years by Gov. Andrew Cuomo routinely stretching the law to its absolute limits to delay or deny release of potentially sensitive information or access to state officials, it generally has helped both the media and the public to peek behind the curtain, so to speak, and has helped to expose countless cases of corruption and other wrongdoing over the past four decades.
The one area where the law remains particularly troubling, however, is its guidelines for reporting on disciplinary actions involving government officials and employees. The law strictly limits access to records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” which has been interpreted traditionally to include the disclosure of any information detailing disciplinary action against specific employees.
That issue came back to the forefront late last week with the suspension of the Troy Police Department’s entire six-person drug and weapons unit. While officials announced the city had placed the entire group on “administrative leave” — bureaucratese for suspended with pay — they provided little other information, including the names of the affected officers or the circumstances that led to their suspensions. As a result, we in the media and the public are left to speculate on what really happened. We really have no clue whether this is a minor issue or a major scandal, beyond the fact that the suspension of an entire police unit is highly unusual and suggests a significant problem.
It also leads to rampant speculation in the media and out in the community that may or may not be true. A weekend television interview seemingly shed some light on the incident by detailing the claims of an unidentified landlord that the entire unit had illegally entered and searched one of her apartments, but we really have no way to know if that is true or not with officials hiding behind that legal shield. While I have no reason to doubt the woman’s claims, I also saw no independent evidence in the report that supported her story, so we can’t be certain whether it is the truth or somebody trying to capitalize on the situation to grind some old axes with police or the city.
In some cases, like the deadly, police-involved shooting more than a year ago of a Watervliet man at the base of the Collar City Bridge, it made sense for the city to release more information as it faced allegations that the officer, Sgt. Randy French, may have needlessly fired eight shots into the windshield of Edwin Thevenin’s car as the officer was reportedly pinned between that car and his own patrol vehicle. There was also the fact that the incident may have been witnessed by one or two people who claimed to have captured the incident on cellphone video.
In that case, it made sense to provide details because they laid out a strong case that French was justified in gunning down Thevenin, but withholding similar details in this latest incident at least gives the appearance that officials are trying to hide something from the public. Don’t let them use the line I’ve heard so many times in the past that they are barred by the very same law from releasing such information, either. In reality, while they are not required to provide information on any matter involving the discipline of a specific person or people, they also aren’t barred from making that information public.
The law clearly states — with the italics added for emphasis — “Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof …” In my experience, the rule of thumb has been that a public body will gladly release any information that makes it look good and withhold any that makes it look bad, so I immediately become suspicious when I am denied access to details of disciplinary actions.
Of course, I selfishly would love to see no restrictions on the public’s right to review the work of the people we pay through our taxes, but some parts of the law actually make sense. For example, if the city is negotiating a new contract with one of its unions, it doesn’t want to publicize its negotiating strategy. Similarly, if a private business is applying for the necessary permits to build in the city, it doesn’t want to have to share private sales and marketing strategies and other information that would give competitors an advantage.
In this case, however, the law serves as nothing more than a way for misconduct to be swept under the rug. Before anybody responds with, “Well, what if they’re innocent?” let me direct your eyes to the bottom of this very page, where we publish the names, ages, hometowns and criminal charges of people who have only been accused of a crime or crimes.
One of the reasons freedom of information and open meetings legislation is called “sunshine laws” is because of the belief that government can only operate in the best interest of the people under the bright light of public scrutiny. In this case, the only interests being served are those of city officials hoping to bury the incident. If you think about it, even the accused officers and the police department suffer because they will be assumed guilty by many simply because the incident is, in their minds, at least, being “hushed up.”
Police and city officials would be best served to lay the incident bare to the world, while state legislators would be well served to clean up that one flaw in an otherwise landmark statute adopted during the days of President Nixon’s Watergate scandal to ensure every public servant is working in the best interests of the people they are supposed to serve. I have argued in the past when the salaries of public employees were first released publicly that if you make your living on the public’s dime, you give up some of the privacies enjoyed by those of us employed in the private sector.
Simply put, while my employer is not likely to publicly release information about my job performance, the people who employ me have access to every single detail. As the “employers” of these six officers, don’t you think you should have the same right?