Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Foil Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Management and Budget Committee Pauses Proposed FOIL Policy after Public Comment; Refers to Executive Committee
Summary
Public commenters told the Sullivan County Management and Budget Committee the draft public‑records (FOIL) policy would create barriers; the committee agreed to pause and refer the draft to the full executive committee for further review rather than adopt it at the meeting.
The Sullivan County Management and Budget Committee on an April meeting day paused consideration of a proposed public‑records policy—commonly called a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) policy—after residents testified that the draft would make records harder to obtain and asked the committee to instead use the state's model rules.
Ken Walters and Star Hesse, members of the public who testified during the public‑comment period, said the county draft contains inconsistent titles and extra procedural steps that could delay or block records requests. Walters told the committee the draft omits a central email contact for requests, assigns the clerk of the board to serve as appeals officer, and uses language that conflicts with state practice on custodianship and response timing. "If the county is not the custodian, such records can be denied…this is a misstatement," Walters said. He recommended using the state model rules and establishing a single FOIL email address so requests are easy to track.
Star Hesse said a letter from another resident, Dave Colavito, underscores similar concerns and that the draft appears to insert "additional barriers and useless processing steps" between requesters and records.
After the public comments, a committee member said the panel would "wait" and review the draft and public comments; the committee did not take a final vote on the draft policy. For the minutes, the chair referred the proposed FOIL policy to the full executive committee for further review and comparison with the state's model rules.
Why it matters: a county FOIL policy governs how residents request records, how quickly county offices must respond, and which office bears responsibility for delivering records. Public commenters argued the draft would make it harder for a requester to obtain records and recommended aligning with the state Committee on Open Government guidance.
What happened next: the committee moved on to other resolutions on the agenda and placed the FOIL policy onto the executive committee's docket for a later, fuller review.
Quotes in context: Walters laid out specific problems with the draft’s timing and custodianship language: "Under their guidelines...the clock ticks at 09:00 the following morning...You have 5 days to respond," he said, urging clearer deadlines and an accessible email address for requests. Hesse added, "This document appears to do the exact opposite" of making records easy to access.
The committee’s referral means no procedural change nor formal adoption will occur until the executive committee reviews a revised draft or compares the county draft with the state model rules.
Ending: Committee members said they will review written public comments—including the letter from Colavito—and the state model rules before presenting a revised draft at a later meeting of the executive committee.
