[00:00:01]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH OFFICE OF THE TOWN BOARD 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607 Tel: 914-989-1500 Fax: 914-993-1541 Email: JDudek@Greenburghny.com https://ny-greenburgh.civicplus.com/485/Watch-Live-Board-Meetings]
UM, ASHER STOCKER.IS ATTORNEY LEWIS? WHAT? IS ATTORNEY LEWIS? NO, HE'S GONNA BE A JUDGE, SO HE'S INVOLVED IN IT.
WE HAVE A WHOLE DEPARTMENT NOT TO WORK, I'M SURE.
SO IS, IS HE DONE BEING THE, UH, TOWN ATTORNEY THEN, OR HE'S LIKE, PROBABLY IF, IF HE GETS CONFIRMED RIGHT TOMORROW, THEN HE WILL PROBABLY LEAVE WITHIN LIKE A WEEK OR TWO.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, HE SAID THAT HE WANTED TO DEPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF YEAH.
HE'S TRYING TO AVOID OUR, EVERYONE.
AND WE HAVE ABLE COUNSEL MICHAEL FOX AND GREAT TO MEET YOU.
I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR LAW FIRM OF GREENBERG, UM, HERE ON BEHALF OF ASHER.
AND THE JOURNAL NEWS, UM, IN FURTHERANCE OF ASHER'S WRITTEN APPEAL, UM, TO THE, IT WAS MAY 16TH, RIGHT? THE, WITH THE WRITTEN APPEAL, I BELIEVE.
WRITTEN APPEAL OF A DENIAL OF A FOIL REQUEST.
UM, THE FOIL REQUEST, JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UM, IT WAS MADE TO THE GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT SEEKING, UM, OFFICER I MAY MISPRONOUNCE THIS EON MING JONES'S DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
UM, INITIALLY, UH, THE POLICE DOCTOR WAS GIVEN A, A GOOD AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS, UM, THEN BASED UPON A REVIEW OF ASHER DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE MISSING.
UM, FOLLOWED UP WITH ATTORNEY LEWIS.
UM, AND EVENTUALLY ATTORNEY LEWIS LET HIM KNOW THAT, OH, YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE TURN IT ON.
OH, WE'RE HEARING FROM, WE GO FROM THE CONTROL ROOM.
THAT YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO KIND OF START AGAIN.
I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF GREENBURG TIG.
UM, WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF ASHER STOCKER, UM, AND THE JOURNAL NEWS IN FURTHERANCE OF A MAY 15TH, UM, WRITTEN APPEAL, UM, TO THE DENIAL OF REPORTER STOCKER'S.
UM, WELL, PARTIAL DENIAL OF REPORTER STOCKER'S, UM, FOIL REQUEST, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST, UM, SEEKING DISCIPLINARY RECORDS FROM THE GREENBERG POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, FOR OFFICER YON MING.
UM, SO THE INITIAL FOIL REQUEST WAS FITTED ON DECEMBER 10TH OF LAST YEAR.
UM, UH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, WITH CERTAIN REDACTIONS THAT WE BELIEVE WERE MADE PURSUANT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION OF FOIL.
UM, AFTER REPORTER STOCKER REVIEWED THAT PRODUCTION, HE NOTICED THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TYPICALLY, UM, WITHIN A DISCIPLINARY FILE WERE MISSING, UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THIS SPECIFIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD.
UM, SO REPORTER STOCKER THEN FOLLOWED UP, UM, WITH TOWN ATTORNEY LEWIS, SEEKING ACCESS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS.
ATTORNEY LEWIS, UH, ACCORDING TO HIS EMAILS BACK AND FORTH, UM, LOOKED INTO IT, AND FINALLY ON MAY 5TH 15TH, CAME BACK TO REPORTER STALER VIA EMAIL, UM, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THESE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE MISSING FROM THE FIRST PRODUCTION, UM, PURSUANT TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION TO FOIL.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL FOR LETTING US GIVE THIS PRESENTATION.
WE, UH, REPRESENT THE JOURNAL NEWS AND MANY OF OTHER GANNET NEWSPAPERS IN FOIL REQUESTS ALL THE TIME.
AND I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONLY AGENCY THAT I'VE EVER WORKED WITH THAT ALLOWS A PERSONAL, UM,
UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR US TODAY.
UM, I'M SURE YOU ALL DEAL WITH A TON OF FOIL ISSUES HERE AT THE TOWN BOARD.
UM, BUT IF I MAY SORT OF JUST TO GIVE A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON HOW WE SEE FO WORKING.
SO PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, WHICH I KEEP REFERRING TO AS FOIL, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
UM, ALL GOVERNMENTAL AND AGENCY RECORDS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE HAVE AN OPEN GOVERNMENT HERE.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IS IMPORTANT TO A FREE SOCIETY, TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF GREENBERG RIGHT, IS BASED UPON.
[00:05:01]
THAT DOCUMENTS CAN BE WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS WITHIN AN AGENCY'S POSSESSION, RIGHT? THE ONLY TIMES THAT THAT CAN BE WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND ACCESS IS IF THE DOCUMENTS FALL WITHIN A NARROWLY CONSTRUED EXCEPTION TO FOIL, RIGHT? AND THE FOIL STATUTE LISTS THEM ALL OUT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED BECAUSE OF THAT IDEA OF OPEN GOVERNMENT THAT I JUST MENTIONED.RIGHT? SO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION IS THE EXEMPTION THAT WE'RE HERE TO APPEAL APPLICATION OF, RIGHT? SO PURSUANT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION, AN AGENCY CAN WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS, RIGHT? SO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE WOULD BE ABLE TO WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS IF THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE, AND AGAIN, THIS IS IMPORTANT, WE'RE ONE COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND TWO, WOULD INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION.
IT'S OUR POSITION HERE THAT NEITHER OF THOSE, THOSE TWO PRONGS ARE SATISFIED.
SO LET'S TAKE THE, IS IT AND OR, AND, AND, AND, AND BOTH PRONGS NEED TO BE MET.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER PRONGS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION, BUT THAT'S THE SPECIFIC PROM THERE THAT WAS CITED.
MR. SPECIFICALLY CITED THOSE TWO THINGS.
SO IT'S SECTION 87 2 E ROMAN ONE TO THE FOIL CALL.
UM, SO THESE DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS THAT ASHER IS SEEKING HERE ARE POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
THEY WERE COMPILED FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
THEY WERE NOT COMPILED FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE.
NOW, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEFINED WHAT COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES MEANS, RIGHT? AND IT MEANS THE INVESTIGATION ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW, RIGHT? EITHER BE IT CRIMINAL OR CIVIL.
THESE INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, HOWEVER, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL STATUTES.
INSTEAD, THEY HAVE TO DO WITH POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL PROCESSES.
SO, IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THESE WERE NOT COMPILED FOR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE AS THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONSTRUED THAT TERM.
I WILL SAY THAT THINGS GET A LITTLE COMPLICATED HERE BY THE DA'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION OF THE OFFICER STEIN INCIDENT.
ARE WE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE OFFICER STEIN? RIGHT.
I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE HAD FOIL REQUESTS OPEN FOR THAT INCIDENT AS WELL AND HAVE DEALT WITH THOSE.
SO THERE'S REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS MAY BE TANGENTIALLY RELATED TO THE ISSUES THAT THE DA'S OFFICE IS INVESTIGATING.
WE STILL BELIEVE THAT EVEN IF SOME OF THOSE DOCUMENTS RELATE TANGENTIALLY OR EVEN DIRECTLY TO THAT ONGOING INVESTIGATION, THESE INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS STILL WERE COMPILED FOR THAT PURPOSE, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DA'S INVESTIGATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
IT HAS A COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, UH, INVOLVED IN A, GIVEN AN OPINION ON THIS.
SO REPORTER STOCKER ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT WHEN HE RECEIVED ATTORNEY LEWIS'S DENIAL, LEWIS'S DENIAL, BECAUSE WE BOTH THOUGHT IT WAS A BIT STRANGE THAT INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THIS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION AND THE ATTORNEY ON OPEN GOVERNANCE RESPONDENT MM-HMM.
UM, AND WE COULD PUT IN A FORMAL REQUEST TO GET A, A FORMAL OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE IF, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
BUT WAIT A MINUTE, CAN WE JUST, I WANT TO FINISH HEARING HER ARGUMENT FIRST BEFORE WE PEPPER UP THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE SURE.
YOU KNOW, BE INTERRUPTED THE FLOW, AND THEN I WAS, I WAS, I CAN GET MY FLOW BACK AT ANY, BUT I WAS, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE, I, I WANT TO HEAR YOU AFTERWARDS UNDERSTAND, BUT ALSO JUST THE, THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT HAS PROMULGATED AN OPINION TO THIS EXACT EFFECT, AND WE, WE, WE CAN CITE YOU THE, THE CASE NUMBER IF YOU WANT, SORT OF, UM, STATING SPECIFICALLY THAT INTERNAL RULES VIOLATIONS ARE NOT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND CAN'T BE CONSIDERED, UM, UH, LAW ENFORCEMENT, UH, RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND, AND THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
SO, SO IT'S, AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT IT'S A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH, RIGHT? RIGHT.
[00:10:01]
THE FIRST PRONG IS WHAT IS IT COMPILED FOR? MM-HMM.TO ONLY APPLY TO INVESTIGATIONS OR PUNISHMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF ACTUAL LAW.
AND THEN THE COMMITTEE HAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN VARIOUS OPINIONS, I BELIEVE THAT INTERNAL RULES VIOLATIONS WITHIN AN AGENCY DO NOT AMOUNT TO THAT.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THIS, THAT RECENTLY THE REPEAL OF NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 A, WHICH MADE, WHEN, WHEN 50 A WAS STILL IN EFFECT, IT ALLOWED POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO WITHHOLD POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
THE REPEAL DID AWAY WITH THAT COMPLETELY.
SO, IF WE READ THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION TO APPLY TO POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, DISCIPLINARY RECORDS THAT ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPILED BY A POLICE OFFICER, IT WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE LEGISLATOR'S TOUGH JOB OF REPEALING 50 A.
IT WOULD JUST COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH THAT MM-HMM.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST PRONG, AND BOTH PRONGS NEED TO BE MET.
SO WE THINK PERIOD, END OF DAY RIGHT.
BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SECOND PRONG, RIGHT? EVEN IF, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN, BUT EVEN IF THERE COULD BE SOME ARGUMENT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR YOU AS A BOARD COULD MAKE TO SAY, BECAUSE OF THIS ONGOING TANGENTIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE DA'S OFFICE, RIGHT.
THAT SOME OF THESE RECORDS COMPILED FOR PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL PURPOSES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH A SEPARATE AGENCIES ONGOING LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, WHICH WE ADMIT IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION.
THAT YOU COULD SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONFLUENCE OF THOSE TWO THINGS, THAT THESE SEPARATE DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED BY A SEPARATE AGENCY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE COMPILED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DA'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION IN A SEPARATE CASE, WHICH I SUBMIT IS A BIT OF A STRETCH.
AND I THINK THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS WOULD AGREE WITH ME THERE, EVEN IF WE GO THERE, RIGHT? IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE SECOND PRONG IS THAT THE AGENCY MUST SHOW THAT DISCLOSURE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT DEPARTMENT'S INVESTIGATION.
OKAY? THERE WAS A FAIRLY RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION, JUST THIS, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
UM, AND IT MADE CLEAR THAT IF THIS SITUATION COMES TO PASS, RIGHT? WHERE THERE'S AN INVESTIGATORY AGENCY AND A NON INVESTIGATORY AGENCY, AND THE NON INVESTIGATORY AGENCY WANTS TO EMPLOY THIS EXEMPTION TO WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER FOIL, THE NON INVESTIGATORY AGENCY NEEDS TO SEEK CONFIRMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATORY AGENCY THAT IT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE INVESTIGATORY AGENCY'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
THAT IT WOULD OR WOULD NOT? THAT IT WOULD, THAT IT WOULD.
NOW, I REVIEWED ALL OF THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN REPORTER STOCKER AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY LEWIS, AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION THAT ANYONE EVEN WENT INTO THIS THINKING, RIGHT.
LET ALONE SOUGHT CONFIRMATION FROM THE DA'S OFFICE OR AN AGS INVESTIGATION OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND NOW, BECAUSE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, THE AGENCY, EVEN IF IT'S A SEPARATE AGENCY, THE NON INVESTIGATORY AGENCY IS STATUTORILY OBLIGATED TO SEEK THAT CONFIRMATION BEFORE THEY DENY ACCESS TO THESE RECORDS.
I DON'T SEE ANY INDICATION THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED.
UNFORTUNATELY, ATTORNEY LEWIS ISN'T HERE TODAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SPEAK AT ALL TO THAT.
UM, BUT I HAVE THE EMAILS BACK AND FORTH.
I, I CAN'T CONFIRM WHAT THE FINAL RESULT WAS MM-HMM.
AND IT IS CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION MAKING.
UM, BASED ON MY REVIEW OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH, AND I HAVE COPIES OF THE EMAIL FROM ATTORNEY LEWIS, IF THAT WOULD HELP
[00:15:01]
THE BOARD IN THIS DETERMINATION, IT, IT DOES SEEM AS THOUGH ATTORNEY LEWIS'S DETERMINATION AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DETERMINATION TO DENY THIS IS ALL BASED ON ITS OWN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY COVERED, IS NOT A LAW EN IS, IS NOT MADE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.UM, SO I SEE NO INDICATION THAT THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO THIS OTHER INVESTIGATION, LET ALONE THAT CONFIRMATION WAS SOUGHT FROM THE DA'S OFFICE, THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S SEPARATE FILES WOULD INTERFERE WITH THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
SO WITH ALL OF THAT
I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE TO SAY IT.
UM, BEING HERE TODAY, ANY OF OUR WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, ANY OF REPORTER STOCKER'S WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE OR APPEALS, IN NO WAY ARE WE WAIVING OUR RIGHTS TO GO FORWARD WITH AN ARTICLE 78 TO SEEK THESE DOCUMENTS.
UM, AND I THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE WOULD SEEK ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IF WE HAD TO DO THAT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? OF COURSE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO, IF I COULD SEE A WRITTEN OPINION FROM SAY, THE, IF YOU COULD GET A WRITTEN OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE YEAH.
ON THAT, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN, BECAUSE I WOULD, I'D LIKE TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF, UH, TRANSPARENCY AND GIVING RECORDS.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THAT IF WE COULD WORK OUT SOMETHING WHERE YOU WRITE TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COULD SUBMIT AT, AT, AT THE SAME TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR THOUGHTS AND THE REASONS, AND, UH, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS AN EXPERT ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, LAWS, THEY COULD READ YOUR CASE, YOUR, YOUR THOUGHTS.
THEY COULD HEAR, ANALYZE THE POLICE, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS.
I WOULD THEN GO WITH WHATEVER THE, I THOUGHT MR. STALER JUST SAID THAT SUCH A DECISION ALREADY.
THERE'S TALKING ABOUT, I I WOULD LIKE TO, I I, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT EVERY CASE IS, YOU SAID IT WAS, THERE'S A FORMAL DECISION.
WELL, SO THERE ARE, I GUESS, TWO ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, RIGHT? ONE IS WHETHER, UM, DISCIPLINARY RECORDS ARE CONSIDERED CAN BE CONSIDERED LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS, AND THE OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT IN AN EMAIL SPEC PRIVATELY TO ME, BUT ALSO IN A PUBLIC PUBLISHED OPINION, IS NO, THAT CAN'T BE.
THE SECOND ISSUE IS, UH, WHETHER, UM, UH, WHETHER RECORDS CAN BE DEEMED COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES, IF THEY'RE JUST CREATED IN THE ROUTINE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS AS THE DEPARTMENT DOES WITH ITS DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS.
AND LATER THROUGH EVENTS, TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION THAT REQUESTS THESE DOCUMENTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE WORKING ON, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE A, A, A GROCERY LIST, AND THEN THE I R S SUDDENLY DECIDES TO AUDIT YOUR LIFE, IS THAT GROCERY LIST CONSIDERED COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES? BECAUSE IT'S A ROUTINE RECORD YOU GENERATE THAT HAPPENS TO FALL INTO THE HAND OF INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE DOING LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND THERE, I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT IS NO, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO WHEN I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT OPINION FROM THE COMMITTEE IS THAT ONCE THESE RECORDS ARE CREATED, ARE THEY CREATED IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT SCHEME, OR WERE THEY CREATED ROUTINELY AND THEN JUST HAPPENED TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF INVESTIGATORS LATER ON? AND WE CAN ALSO CITE THAT OPINION FOR YOU AS WELL.
BUT I, BUT, BUT I, BECAUSE I USED TO, WHEN, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN SCHOOL, I WROTE TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, LIKE EVERY SINGLE DAY, UM, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY JUST STARTED.
SO MY, MY FAIL, THEY ALWAYS ANSWER SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS.
SO I SORT OF FEEL THAT IF WE, TO AVOID LITIGATION MM-HMM.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, AND, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE TOWN BOARD, WE DON'T WANT TO THROW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE BUS, AND WE BASICALLY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE WANT TO, WE DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ALL THAT.
SO I SORT OF FEEL THAT IF YOU CAME IN WITH, YOU KNOW, YOUR REASONS, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MM-HMM.
[00:20:01]
AND I APPRECIATE THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, UM, AND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE'S THOUGHTS ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.I WILL SAY THAT FOIL HAS VERY SPECIFIC TIMELINES FOR APPEALS, UM, FOR THE TIME THAT THE AGENCY NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THE INITIAL REQUEST FOR THE TIME THAT THE AGENCY NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THE APPEAL.
AND THEY'RE VERY TIGHT TIMELINES AND FOR GOOD REASON.
I MEAN, WE SAY IT ALL THE TIME, NEWS DELAYED IS NEWS DENIED.
WHAT I, I, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WRITE TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNANCE AND SEEK THEIR OPINION ON THIS, BUT I DO NOT WISH TO DELAY.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO DELAY THE TOWN BOARD'S DETERMINATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, REPORTER STOCKER HAS TO PUT OUT THE NEWS.
HE HAS A DUTY TO PUBLIC TO PUT OUT THE NEWS.
AND NOW, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN WAITING ON THIS SINCE DECEMBER OF 2021.
BUT MY FAIL, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, I KNOW YOU'RE DOING THIS, YOU'RE SUING OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL.
SO, WELL, THOSE ARE FOR 50 A RECORDS.
THOSE ARE SEPARATE FROM, RIGHT.
BUT MY, SO MY FAILING IS THAT, UM, IF WE, LET'S SAY YOU SEND OUT SOMETHING QUICKLY TO THE COMMUNITY AND OPEN GOVERNMENT, THEN WE TELL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IF THEY WANT, IF THEY DISAGREE WITH IT, THEY COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, WRITE QUICKLY AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL BASICALLY ASK, UH, FOR, UH, A QUICK OPINION.
THEY'VE ALWAYS, IN THE PAST, THEY ACT VERY, VERY QUICKLY ON THESE OPEN GOVERNMENT MM-HMM.
AND IF WE DIDN'T GET THEIR RESPONSE YEAH.
BUT I WOULD CALL, WE, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DECISION.
I, I WOULD, I, I WOULD CALL, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO IT QUICK ENOUGH.
WHAT'S THE DATE ON THAT? IT'S, IT'S 10.
BUT CAN, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? WHY DON'T YOU BASICALLY SAY IF WE COULD, LIKE, WITHIN, BECAUSE LET'S SAY WE'RE REALLY OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH YOU.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING MM-HMM.
WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO DO WELL, I SHOULD SPEAK TO MYSELF FOR MYSELF.
I, I WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
UM, THE THING IS, I, I'M, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR DELAYS.
IF, UM, IF, YOU KNOW, I WANT THE, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO CREATE A PRECEDENT, RIGHT? THAT COULD HELP, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THE, IF THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THESE RECORDS SHOULD BE EITHER RELEASED IN THE TOWN, BASICALLY SAYS, OKAY, WE'RE GOING ALONG WITH THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT TAKES, AND LET'S SAY YOU WOULD AGREE.
SAY IF IT'S, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT LIKE A REALLY LENGTHY, YOU KNOW, DELAY IF IT'S ANOTHER WEEK OR TWO OR WHATEVER, THEN I SAID, PHIL, YOU, WE COULD GET, WE COULD DO THIS QUICKLY, AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE A PRESIDENT.
AND THEN YOU COULD ALWAYS GO TO OTHER COMMUNITIES AND SAY, WHY DON'T THEY DO THE SAME THING? AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, NOBODY'S GONNA BE, UH, DIFFICULT DEALING WITH FREEDOM INFORMATION PROFESSORS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW JUDITH'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THIS FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR YEARS, YOU KNOW, AND SORT OF THING IS LIKE, SO YOU, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I, I I, I, WE REALLY WANNA BE YEAH.
I APPRECIATE, I, AND I DO, AND I, AND, AND I'M NOT SAYING NO TO THIS YEAH.
SUGGESTION, BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THE CREATIVE POTENTIAL PATH TO RESOLUTION WITHOUT HAVING TO BRING IN ARTICLE 78.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S NEVER WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN THESE SITUATIONS.
I WILL SAY THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO THOUGH, IS TO PUT IN AN ENTIRELY NEW STEP OF THE FOIL PROCESS THAT IS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE ITSELF.
UM, AND THERE ARE ALREADY, AS ASHER HAS MADE CLEAR, THERE ARE ALREADY VARIOUS OPINIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE, NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE.
BUT THAT ARE TELLING AND ON POINT TO BOTH THE COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES RIGHT.
SO WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND THOSE TO ATTORNEY LEWIS FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
UM, I AM, AND I, I WILL SPEAK WITH MY CLIENT ON THIS, BUT I'M A BIT HESITANT TO AGREE TO ANOTHER STEP IN A FULLY FORMED STATUTORY PROCESS THAT HAS WORKED FOR DECADES.
UM, AGAIN, I WANT, I WANT TO WORK WITH THE TOWN, AND I WANT TO COME TO AN AMICABLE RESOLUTION.
WE WANT THE DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
BUT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION WAS REALLY, I'M SAYING STATEWIDE, YOU KNOW, FROM MY OBSERVATIONS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE GO LOOKING THE OTHER WAY, AND IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, I FEEL IF YOU LOOK STATEWIDE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A LACK OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IT'S A LOT, IT'S A BIG BURDEN.
IT'S TIME CONSUMING AND ALL THAT.
SO IF YOU, I AGREE, IF YOU, SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE A WAY WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, AND ALSO LIKE, IF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
[00:25:01]
SAYS, THIS IS REALLY TERRIBLE, BECAUSE YOU'RE JE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, IF YOU RULE ONE WAY, YOU'RE JE POTENTIALLY THEY COULD SAY, WE'RE JEOPARDIZING PUBLIC SAFETY AND IF POLICE ISSUES OR WHATEVER MM-HMM.IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, THEN, THEN WE COULD SAY TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT THIS IS THE LAW AND THIS IS, AND THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT ARB, THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO'S MAKING A DECISION WHO'S PROBABLY EVEN MORE QUALIFIED THAN A JUDGE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY DO IS, IS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
THE JUDGES ARE MORE POLITICAL AND BASICALLY MAY NOT, MAY, IT IS A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
I THINK THIS COULD REALLY BE, UM, SO MAD MADAM, MADAM ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU AGREE TO, UM, A WEEK? 'CAUSE I, I KNOW THAT, AND, AND ALL THE COMMAND OPEN GOVERNMENT, I KNOW THE ATTORNEYS THERE, AND I KNOW THEY WORK FAST.
AND WE'VE ALWAYS RECEIVED VERY PROMPT, PROMPT, PRETTY SURE THAT SHE WOULD RETURN YOUR RESPONSE IN A MATTER OF A DAY OR TWO.
AND THIS BOARD MEETS EVERY TUESDAY MM-HMM.
SO THAT WOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A RESPONSE FROM HER, HAVE THEM, UM, CONSIDER IT, AND THEN HAVE A DECISION MM-HMM.
IT, IT, IT, IT IS, IT, YOU, YOU WOULD BE VERY GRACIOUSLY INCLUDING A ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS.
AND, UM, IT, IT WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW YEAH.
AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THE POLICE CHIEF, IF HE WANTS TO RESPOND AND SAY, WHY MM-HMM.
IT'S, IT'S THAT, IT'S THAT ENTIRE, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE ALLOWING THE AGENT, I MEAN THE AGENCY.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC.
AND, AND, AND MY FEAR, AND AGAIN, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THIS, THIS CONVERSATION, AND I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING PATH FORWARD.
MY HESITANCY IS THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE JOURNAL NEWS HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD ON A 50 A REQUEST, AND THE JOURNAL NEWS AND OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS ARE, ARE BEFORE AGENCIES LIKE THIS ONE ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF DENIALS OR PARTIAL DENIALS OF FOIL REQUESTS ALL THE TIME.
AND I AM VERY HESITANT TO CREATE A PROCESS THAT ONE PUTS IN ANOTHER, UH, STAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PROCESS.
AND THAT ESSENTIALLY REPLACES THIS BOARD'S DUTIES WITH THE COMMITTEE.
I, I, 99% OF THE TIME AGREE WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE DOES.
I, I, I DO, I THINK, I THINK WE WOULD GET TO A GOOD PLACE, BUT I FEAR GOING TOO FAR OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTORY MANDATES OF FOIL, INCLUDING THE TIMELINES AND THE CLEARLY ARTICULATED APPEALS PROCESS MIGHT GET US TO, YEAH.
I, I FEAR THAT WE ARE CONFUSING THE ROLES OF THE AGENCY.
THE ONLY THING I, I FEEL IS, AND AGAIN, I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR, FOR MYSELF MM-HMM.
AND IF WE BASICALLY COULD SET LIKE A PRECEDENT WHERE WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING WHEN WE HAVE THESE APPEALS, WE COULD SAY BOTH SIDES.
YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO QUICKLY.
THE MINUTE SOMEBODY DENIED, WE TELL BOTH SIDES TO WRITE, WE WILL GO TO THE COMMITTEE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DON'T, THAT'S WHAT SHE'S EXACTLY WHAT I DON'T HAVE TO HAPPEN.
WE MIGHT AS WELL HIRE THE, THE LAWYER FOR THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT.
I KNOW, I, I FEEL THAT THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, THESE ARE EXPERTS.
THIS IS ALL THEY DO IS THEY'RE EXPERTS ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND OPEN GOVERNMENT.
HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD, HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SAY THE ONUS IS.
TO MAKE A PARTICULARIZED AND SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS.
THE ONUS IS NOT ON THE COMMITTEE.
IF YOU ALL AS A BOARD INDEPENDENTLY FEEL THE NEED TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMITTEE TO GET AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SEEN THAT DONE THAT.
IT DIDN'T, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE APPEALS PRO, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AGENCY, THE TOWN BOARD, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER REACHES OUT.
[00:30:01]
AGREEING TO ANOTHER STEP IN THIS PROCESS, TO GIVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS THE AGENCY WHO RIGHT.CARRIES THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING THEIR WITHHOLDING, GIVING THEM ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE.
NOW IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE.
I, I FEAR WE'RE GETTING WAY OUTSIDE OF WHAT FOIL CONSTRUES AND ITS MANDATES.
UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO STAY AS TIGHTLY INTERTWINED IN FOIL AND ITS MANDATES AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
SO, SO COULD I ASK SOMETHING WITHIN THE FOIL PROCESS? YES, OF COURSE.
UH, AND IF YOU DO WRITE TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, THEY'RE GONNA RESPOND SAYING, BASED ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS CONTAINED AND THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO US, AND THIS IS A VERY NUANCED, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH BARRY, BUT IT'S A NUANCED, UH, CASE BECAUSE OF THE STEIN CASE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME, AND OUR POLICE CHIEF SAYING THAT THERE'S AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE INCIDENT.
BUT I, I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD BEFORE.
IT APPEARED TO ME THAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR, UM, VIOLATIONS.
ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT IS, UH, SHOWS THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION THAT THE OFFICER HAD REGARDING, UM, HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.
UH, BUT THAT'S, WE'RE WE'RE SEEKING THE OFFICER'S FULL DISCIPLINARY FILE.
BUT THAT WASN'T, UH, THAT I DIDN'T, THAT I DON'T THINK THAT CAME ACROSS, AT LEAST TO ME, THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT BECAUSE YOU WERE, YOU WERE DOING THE BIFURCATION AS TO THERE'S CRIMINAL, UH, INVESTIGATION GOING ON, BUT THEN THERE'S HIS VIOLATION OF DISCIPLINARY.
UH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE WE, WE SENT THE FOIL REQUEST, REPORTER SOLER SENT THE FOIL REQUEST REQUEST TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
SEEKING THE OFFICER'S FULL DISCIPLINARY FILE.
HE RECEIVED BACK A SUBSET OF THE DISCIPLINARY FILE, UM, AND THEN FOLLOWED UP AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS BEING EXEMPTED PURSUANT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THIS, THIS FOIL REQUEST IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WHATEVER THE DA'S OFFICE HAS ON THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS SPECIFIC TO A DOCUMENT REQUEST TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OWN INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY FILE.
SO COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THEN, ON APRIL 12TH, UH, 22ND, UM, UH, REPORTER STOCKER, I'LL USE THE TERMINOLOGY
'CAUSE IT DOES SEEM LIKE YOU'RE GOING AFTER THE DISCIPLINE, THE, THE INCIDENT, UH, AS OPPOSED TO THE DISCIPLINARY.
THAT'S SOMETHING, LEMME JUST, LEMME JUST READ THIS.
INTERVIEW NOTES, INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS, INVESTIGATORY DOCUMENTS, NOTE NOTICES OF CHARGES, PLEADING DOCUMENTS, STATEMENTS, TESTIMONIES, INTERIM REPORTS, FINAL REPORTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ALL OTHER RECORDS GENERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S INVESTIGATION OR ANY OUTSIDE OR OTHER INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONED BY THE TOWN INTO A RECENT INCIDENT INVOLVING EON MING YOUNG'S, UH, TO WHICH HE PLEADED GUILTY TO COMMITTING A MISCONDUCT.
SO I, I I THINK THAT'S WHERE OUR COUNSEL IS TELLING US, BECAUSE THERE'S AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, UM, THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A DISTINCTION.
WELL, I, I, THE ISSUE, SO, SO I SORT OF, I, I, I GUESS I, I CHARACTERIZE THAT AS A SUPPLEMENT TO MY REQUEST OR, OR CLARIFICATION.
THE ISSUE WAS THERE ARE TYPICALLY DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN DISCIPLINARY FILES PURSUANT TO, THAT ARE CREATED IN THE COURSE OF DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE BACK.
AND THEN I WENT TO MY ORIGINAL REQUEST, WHICH ASKED FOR SPECIFICALLY THE FULL DISCIPLINARY AND PERSONNEL FILES.
SO I THOUGHT PERHAPS BASED ON THE WAY MY REQUEST WAS WORDED, THESE OTHER RECORDS, RIGHT, WHICH SHOULD BE CREATED IN ANY DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY LOCATED IN HIS DISC QUOTE UNQUOTE DISCIPLINARY FILE.
MAYBE IT WAS LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT FILE IN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S FILE, THE CAPTAIN'S FILE SOME FILE SOMEWHERE.
SO THIS WAS JUST MEANT TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF THAT SORT OF, UH, ANCILLARY STUFF.
IT'S PART OF THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION.
I WANT IT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT FILE IT'S LOCATED IN.
UM, SO THAT WAS JUST INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE FULL UNIVERSE OF SPECIFICALLY DISCIPLINARY MATERIALS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY'RE PHYSICALLY LOCATED.
COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE IN THE FILE THAT WASN'T IN THE FILE OR WASN'T TURNED OVER? UM, WELL, SO I BELIEVE TYPICALLY IN DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS, THERE ARE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED, AND THOSE INTERVIEWS ARE RECORDED ON AUDIO.
THERE ARE ALSO TYPICALLY NOTES THAT ARE MADE DURING THE DISCIPLINARY INTERVIEWS.
AND I WAS ACTUALLY ALERTED TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THESE RECORDS BECAUSE IN THE FEW RECORDS I GOT BACK, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE STIPULATION
[00:35:01]
OF SETTLEMENT, IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES, UM, OFFICER YUAN'S LACK OF CANDOR IN AN INTERVIEW IN THIS DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.SO I SAID, HMM, THIS SETTLEMENT IS REFERENCING AN INTERVIEW.
WHY DON'T I HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS EITHER, UH, TRANSCRIBING THE INTERVIEW, DOCUMENTING THE INTERVIEW, RECORDING THE INTERVIEW? WHY DOESN'T THAT EXIST? SO TYPICALLY THERE WOULD BE AN INTERVIEW THAT WOULD BE RECORDED AND NOTES WOULD BE MADE THERE FROM RIGHT.
SO I DIDN'T HAVE THAT, WHICH, AND I KNEW EVEN WITHOUT THAT REFERENCE IN THE STIPULATION THAT THESE RECORDS TYPICALLY EXIST OR ARE CREATED IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE OTHER THINGS MISSING THAT I SHOULD BE HAVING ACCESS TO THAT WERE NOT PRODUCED TO ME OR EVEN IDENTIFIED BY MR. LEWIS.
AND JUST IF I COULD, UH, MR. FINER, UM, RESPOND QUICKLY TO A COUPLE OF YOUR CONCERNS.
I MEAN, THE ONLY THING I WOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IS, AS YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT IS UNDER A NEW ADMINISTRATION.
UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I BELIEVE THEY ARE LESS INCLINED TO PUBLISH AS MANY OPINIONS, ESPECIALLY ON MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED BEFORE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE MET OUR, UM, OUR, OUR, UH, NEWSROOM MET WITH THE NEW DIRECTOR, SHOSHANA BULE, WHO'S FANTASTIC RECENTLY, AND IT WAS JUST MY IMPRESSION THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT AS INCLINED TO SERIALLY PUBLISH OPINIONS AS I BELIEVE THEIR PREDECESSOR MAY HAVE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK THROUGH SORT OF THE ARCHIVE OF HIS OPINIONS, OFTEN THEY'RE LIKE, COPY AND PASTED BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME OPINION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE, THEY'RE TAKING THE SAME TACK IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUBLISHING AS MANY OPINIONS.
SO I JUST WORRY, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO, IT'S POSSIBLE WE'LL RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE IF WE AGREE TO THIS PROCESS, WHICH I, I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK, COMMIT TO THAT RIGHT NOW, UM, THEY'LL SAY SOMETHING LIKE, NO, OR THEY WON'T.
THEN, THEN I SORT OF FEEL THAT IF WE JUST TRY THAT, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, LOST.
I, I'VE NEVER REALLY, I BELIEVE THAT SOMETIMES IF YOU GO OUTSIDE THE PROCESS, IT'S BETTER THAN GOING, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I GOT MY START WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, I, I SUED THE COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS FOR, FROM GOVERNMENT.
UM, ARCHIBALD COX WAS THE WATERGATE PROSECUTOR.
THEY NAMED ME ONE OF THE SIX OF THE TOP POLITICAL ACTIVISTS IN THE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE I SUED EVERYBODY FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT.
SO I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS COMMON.
CAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE IN WHAT, IN THIS, YOU KNOW, I REALLY WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT.
I WANT TO BE OPEN, TRANSPARENT.
AT THE SAME TIME I REALLY WANT, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA BE HARMFUL TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND I SORT OF FEEL THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE, LET'S SAY YOU DECIDED THAT THIS APPROACH WAS WORTH, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING, I FEEL IT'S LIKE A, A AN OUT OF THE BOX APPROACH TO DEALING WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND OPEN GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, ISSUES.
AND IF IT WORKS AND THE CONCEPT WORKS, IT COULD HAVE STATEWIDE POSITIVE IMPLICATIONS.
BECAUSE I KNOW, LIKE I WOULD BET MY LIFE ON IT, THAT 90, THAT THERE'S SO MUCH, UH, SO MANY COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE, JUST SO I'M NOT COMPLYING WITH IT EVERY, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? PEOPLE ASK FOR RECORDS.
UM, IT'S A, IT'S A PAIN IN THE NECK.
UH, EMPLOYEES FEEL THAT IT'S A BURDEN.
IT TAKES, YOU KNOW, TOO MUCH TIME.
SO, UM, SO A LOT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS ARE JUST ALWAYS IGNORED.
AND I SORT OF FEEL THAT IF WE COULD, UM, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD, COME UP WITH A, AND MAYBE THE STATE SHOULD COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, I FEEL THAT YOU'RE GONNA LAND UP GETTING, I FEEL MY APPROACH, YOU'LL LAND UP GETTING MORE MM-HMM.
THAT'S JUST MY OWN FEELING RIGHT NOW.
MAYBE I'M WRONG WITH THIS ONE.
MY, AGAIN, I'LL REITERATE MY CONCERN THAT AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE ASKING US TO AGREE TO AN AD HOC PROCESS OUTSIDE OF THE FOIL PROCEDURE, WHICH IS CLEAR.
THAT ESSENTIALLY REPLACES YOU ALL OR ANY FOIL APPEALS OFFICER AT ANY AGENCY WITH THE COMMITTEE.
AND THAT, UH, MAKES ME BOTH UNCOMFORTABLE AND I FEAR IT, IT IT BORDERLINE OF VIOLATION OF THE
YOU COULD, LET'S SAY YOU TRY IT AND IT DOESN'T WORK, THEN YOU LOSE NOTHING.
BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU'VE BEEN AT THIS, THIS CASE FOR, SINCE DECEMBER.
SO IT'S BEEN SO, IT'S, SO IT'S BEEN LIKE A LONG, A LONG TIME ANYWAY.
SO LET'S SAY ANOTHER COUPLE WEEKS.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU MAY LAND UP GETTING, YOU KNOW, MORE AND MAYBE CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE TO FOLLOW THE SAME THING.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF THIS WORKS MM-HMM.
MAYBE THEY HAVE TO BE BEEF UP TO OFFICES.
SO THIS WAY, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES WILL GET H****R RESPONSES, YOU KNOW? RIGHT.
[00:40:01]
I'M SAYING THERE'S A LOT.WELL, I, I, I WOULD JUST URGE YOU THEN, I MEAN, IF YOU TRULY DO, YOU KNOW, WANT TO, UM, BE A PROPONENT OF TRANSPARENCY, I WOULD HONESTLY THEN URGE THE TOWN TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
I MEAN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DISCUSS HERE TODAY, AND KELLY ASSURES ME, UM, WE'RE RIGHT ON THE LAW HERE.
YOU CAN JUST RELEASE THE RECORDS.
THEY'RE, IT'S TOTALLY AT YOUR DISCRETION.
UM, AND YOU CAN RELEASE THEM IMMEDIATELY.
YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU WANT TO BE A PROPONENT OF TRANSPARENCY, I WOULD JUST ARGUE THAT THE TOWN SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE AND DO IT.
AND IN THAT WAY, CREATE A PRECEDENT MOVING FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, SET THE BAR REALLY HIGH FOR OTHER TOWNS AND VILLAGES ACROSS THE STATE THAT THEY'RE ON.
NOTICE THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS THESE RECORDS AND THAT THEY SHOULD JUST BE RELEASED.
THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S NO GRAY AREA HERE ON THE FIRST PRONG.
COURT OF APPEALS HAS SPOKEN CLEARLY ON THIS, AND THE COMMITTEE HAS SPOKEN CLEARLY ON THIS.
I BASICALLY, THEY NEED TO BE COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY DOCUMENTS ARE NOT COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
EVEN IF IT IS THE INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY PROCESS OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE ONLY CONFUSION IS IF WE EVEN GET TO THE SECOND PRONG, WHICH I SEE NO REASON THAT ANYBODY WOULD EVEN GET TO THE SECOND PRONG.
'CAUSE THE FIRST PRONG IS CLEAR, BUT IT'S BOTH PRONGS THAT HAVE TO BE SATISFIED.
SO THE FIRST PRONG ISN'T SATISFIED.
THE, THE POLICE CHIEF IS JOINING US ON ZOOM.
CAN WE GET HIM THE SCREEN? SO THE, I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT A, UH, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UH, RECORDS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WERE UNRELATED TO THE INVESTIGATION, BLESS POSSESSION.
COULD YOU, UM, TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? SURE.
BY ALL MEANS, UH, I THINK WHERE THE CONFUSION COMES INTO PLAY IS THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS THAT ARE SOUGHT, UH, WERE GENERATED AND INITIATED BY THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO A MATTER THAT'S STILL ONGOING.
I'M GOING, SO TO TURN THEM OVER TO, AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE GET A DETERMINATION IF THERE'S GONNA BE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR NOT, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE PREMATURE.
UM, WE ACTED SWIFTLY TO, UM, TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION WHERE IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT EVERY, EVERY LEVEL ALONG THE WAY.
BUT EVERY ONE OF THE INTERVIEWS INVOLVES THE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL MATTER AND TRYING TO GATHER, GATHER FURTHER EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD.
THIS IS, UH, I'M KELLY MCNAMEE.
I'M A LAWYER WITH THE GR WITH GREENBERG ROHRIG.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE JOURNAL NEWS.
AND ASHER STOCKER THE REPORTER WHO PUT IN THE ORIGINAL FOIL REQUEST.
UM, BECAUSE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INSTITUTED A DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AGAINST THIS OFFICER, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND THE DA, UM, HAS AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO NO SIMILAR MATTERS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DA HAVEN'T KEPT THOSE RECORDS SEPARATE? UH, THE RECORDS ARE KEPT SEPARATE BECAUSE A LOT OF, UH, OUR INTERVIEWS ARE COMPELLED, AND YOU, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN'T USE PROPELLED INTERVIEWS AGAINST DEFENSE.
HOWEVER, IF SOMEBODY BECOMES A WITNESS, THAT TESTIMONY IS VERY RELEVANT TO ANY FUTURE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
SO, TO BE CLEAR, UH, THE FOIL REQUEST AT ISSUE HERE SOUGHT ONLY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, NOT ANY RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE DA'S OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OWN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
BUT WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO A ATED INVESTIGATION.
WE'RE DOING AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, AND WE'RE DOING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
AND THE FOIL REQUESTED ISSUE IS, IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNAL POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, WHICH, WHICH IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, OR AT LEAST SHOULD BE, UH, I UNDERSTOOD.
BUT WHICH YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME, ONCE THE DISCIPLINE IS DISPOSED OF, THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION, IS NOW A WITNESS TO THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
[00:45:02]
WE'RE SEEKING THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION, WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY ATTORNEY LEWIS TO DENY MY CLIENT'S FOIL REQUEST.IN PART, UM, THE, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT IT ONLY, UH, THAT IT, THAT AN AGENCY MAY ONLY WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION IF THE DOCUMENTS WERE COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, EVEN IF THEY'RE INTERNAL TO A POLICE DEPARTMENT, ARE NOT COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES TO BE COMPILED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
THE DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL STATUTES, NOT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNAL PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES.
WE'RE SEEKING DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY RECORDS AND PROCESSES.
I, I UNDERSTAND, AND I FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT ONCE THE DISCIPLINE IS DISPOSED OF, THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCIPLINE MAY BE A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AND THE STATEMENTS TO THE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN WOULD THEN BE ADMISSIBLE, OR, OR HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT THAT IS TAKEN FROM HIM.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'VE DELIVERED THOSE STATEMENTS TO THE DA'S OFFICE? NO, THE INTERNAL COMPELLED STATEMENTS ARE NOT DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
SO THERE'S STILL INTERNAL POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
A A AND SURELY AT THE TIME THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS ISSUED, WHICH IS THE TIME AT WHICH A COURT WOULD DETERMINE THIS ISSUE, IT, IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SOMEDAY THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE DA'S OFFICE AND THEN BECOME A PART OF THE DA'S OFFICE'S FILE.
AND I WILL SAY THAT IF THEY HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE DA'S OFFICE, THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION TO FOIL, WHICH WERE RECENTLY MADE, REQUIRES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RECEIVE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DA'S OFFICE, THAT DISCLOSURE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE DA'S OFFICE INVESTIGATION.
AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT THAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU JUST TOLD ME ME THAT THE DA'S OFFICE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THESE RECORDS YET.
WHAT I TOLD YOU IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE COMPELLED STATEMENTS.
NONETHELESS, EVERYONE WHO'S INTERVIEWED THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
SO, UM, FOR, IF YOU COULD JUST, I, I CAME IN LEAN TO THIS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THAT YOU WANT? WE WANT THE FULL DISCIPLINARY RECORDS FOR OFFICER.
DO WE NOT TURN THAT OVER? THE STIPULATION OF, WELL, YOU, YES.
YOU TURNED OVER THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, BUT AS I WAS EXPLAINING EARLIER TO THE BOARD, UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER, UM, RECORDS YOU'RE REFERRING.
UH, I'VE, YOU'VE ALLUDED TO A FEW OF THEM NOW, THE COMPELLED STATEMENTS, UH, THINGS THAT SORT OF DESCRIBE SUBSTANTIVELY THE INCIDENT AT QUESTION.
UM, THE INTERVIEW WITH, UM, MR. YUAN, UM, ANY AUDIO RECORDING OF THAT INTERVIEW, POSSIBLE NOTES THAT WERE TAKEN DURING THE INTERVIEW BY, UH, CAPTAINS CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW.
I, THE ISSUE IS MR. LEWIS DIDN'T IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE MISSING FROM HIS PRODUCTION, BUT, UH, I KNOW FROM THE STIPULATION THAT REFERRED TO THIS INTERVIEW THAT AT, AT THE VERY LEAST THE INTERVIEW RECORDING OR TRANSCRIPTS WERE MISSING, BUT POSSIBLY THERE ARE OTHER DOCUMENTS AS WELL.
I THINK ONE DISTINCTION THAT'S BEING LOST ON EVERYBODY IS THE GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS INDEPENDENT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO WE ARE CONDUCTING A BIFURCATED INVESTIGATION, ONE INTO THE DISCIPLINARY MATTERS, WHICH WE ARE TAKING SMALL, UH, SWIFT AND PROMPT ACTION ON AS WE DISCOVER MISCONDUCT WHILE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING.
AND JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DID CLARIFY FOR EVERYONE, AND KELLY CONSISTENTLY CLARIFY, CLARIFIES MY FOIL REQUEST PERTAINS ONLY TO THE DOCUMENTS.
YOU, YOU REFERENCED A BIFURCATED INVESTIGATION.
MY REQUEST ONLY PERTAINS TO DOCUMENTS CREATED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE DISCIPLINARY MATTER.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE VIOLATION OF THE PATROL GUIDE, NOT ANY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT'S ONGOING.
AND TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
UM, BUT YOU REFERENCED AN INTERVIEW, RIGHT? UH, A, A COMPELLED INTERVIEW WITH OFFICER YULAN.
THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS INTERVIEWS IN THIS CASE.
AND THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION? UH, YES, IT WAS.
OH, BECAUSE I DO, I I DON'T HAVE THOSE RECORDS, SO
[00:50:01]
I DID NOT RECEIVE THOSE.BUT THEY VERY, VERY WELL HAVE BECOME PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF PARSING THIS THING.
PERHAPS WE COULD SET UP A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ACTUAL FACTS, AND MAYBE I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND KIND OF LIKE, UH, PUT THIS BACK IN PERSPECTIVE.
'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE AN ONGOING PROBLEM AS, UH, EVERYONE MOVES FORWARD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE DISCIPLINARY IS SO INTERTWINED WITH POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES, YOU KNOW, TO DEFINITIVELY KNOW WHERE THE LAW'S GONNA GO.
IT'S KIND OF UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT.
I, I DO AGREE THAT THIS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY BE AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, AS OF DECEMBER OF 2021, UM, WAS THIS A PURELY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING? UH, I ARRIVED ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2021.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS JUST IN ITS INFANCY AT THAT POINT.
UM, INTERVIEWS HAD BEEN DONE BEFORE I GOT THERE.
I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY.
CAN YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? I'M JUST TRYING TO PINPOINT THE POINT IN TIME WHERE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INVESTIGATION MOVED FROM A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION INTO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
OR IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DRAW THAT LINE.
I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS A CLEAR RIGHT TO ACCESS POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS.
AND IF DURING THIS INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BECOME MUDDIED, UM, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT MAY BE AN ISSUE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S RECORD KEEPING AND INVESTIG INVESTIGATORY PRACTICES.
WELL, I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT LEVELS.
NUMBER ONE, WHENEVER THERE'S REASONABLE SUSPICION, YOUR CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO INITIATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
AND, AND I, AND I'M THANKFUL THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES TAKE THOSE STEPS.
UM, MY ISSUE IS THAT POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC.
THAT WAS UNDERSCORED BY THE LEGISLATOR'S REPEAL OF SECTION 50 A, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY SHIELDED POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
IF WHAT I'M NOW HEARING IS THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS CONFLATED DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS WITH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND IS NOW USING THAT CONFLATION AS A REASON TO EMPLOY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXEMPTION TO FOIL DISCLOSURE, I THINK THAT IS A REAL ISSUE THAT THE LEGISLATURE THAT WORKED HARD TO REPEAL 50 A FOR GOOD REASON WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH, COULD I, COULD I GET A CLARIFICATION? GEORGE? UH, CHIEF, CHIEF, UH, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS DISCOVERED AT FROM THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
THAT THE, THERE WAS A DISCIPLINARY, UM, THERE WAS SOME DISCIPLINARY MEASURES NEEDED, AND THAT GREW INTO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE WAS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT REVEALED CERTAIN ACTIONS AND THAT THE DI YOU TOOK, UH, DISCIPLINARY ACTION IMMEDIATELY ON THAT, BUT IT WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT IS STILL ONGOING? THAT'S CORRECT.
MICHAEL, DO YOU
I, AND I, I APPRECIATE, I I REALLY DO.
I MEAN, I THINK FROM ALL SIDES HERE, I'M SEEING A LOT OF ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
AND WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU GIVING US THE TIME TO MAKE THIS PRESENTATION, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY NOW, I THINK WITH THIS POTENTIAL CONFLATION OF THE TWO IN INVESTIGATIONS, THIS, THIS COULD, THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE.
AND MICHAEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR US? WELL, IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DISCUSS.
UH, THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORM TO DELIBERATE IT, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'VE LEARNED TODAY.
THERE'S, UH, IT, THE LAW IS NOT AS CLEAR NECESSARILY, BUT THERE IS SOME CLEAR LAW AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WILL FURTHER DISCUSS AND COME UP WITH AN OPINION IN
[00:55:01]
A VERY TIMELY MANNER.SO, UH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
I DON'T THINK THERE ARE MANY MUNICIPALITIES WHO MAKE THEIR POLICE CHIEF AVAILABLE TO YOU.
NO, I, I WILL SAY THAT THIS, THIS PROCESS THAT GREENBERG HAS IN PLACE IS ALREADY OUTSIDE OF THE PROCESS CONTEMPLATED BY FOIL.
WE, WE DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THIS.
ASHER, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? UM, NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UH, CHIEF LONGWORTH, UM, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT BACK AND FORTH HERE, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL JUST TO GET A SENSE OF THE UNIVERSE OF RECORDS AT ISSUE HERE, BECAUSE AS I SAID, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY EVEN WHAT'S OUT THERE.
YOU REFERENCED THE COMPELLED STATEMENT, THERE'S AN INTERVIEW, BUT IS THAT THE FULL EXTENT OF THIS DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, UM, WHAT RECORDS EXIST THAT WERE CREATED PURSUANT TO THE DISCIP, SPECIFICALLY THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION.
YOU KNOW, PERHAPS YOU CAN SET UP A MEETING TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER.
UM, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE ONE FEAR THAT I HAVE IN THIS PROCESS, AND I I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU GUYS ARE COMING FROM, THE INFORMATION YOU WANT, IS, I FELT AT THE TIME IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DISCIPLINE THAN TO WAIT UNTIL THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WAS OVER.
WE ADMINISTERED, UH, FOR A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
SO FOR PUBLIC POLICY REASONS, I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSION AS TO THOUGHT WHETHER YOU WANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO HOLD OFF ON DISCIPLINE, POLICE OFFICERS GET IN TROUBLE TO AVOID BEING PUT INTO THIS POSITION WHERE YOU HAVE A CASE THAT'S BOTH CRIMINAL DISCIPLINARY, INTERLINE.
I MEAN, HONESTLY, IT'S MY EXPERIENCE THAT THEY DO.
YOU KNOW, I QUERY MANY POLICE DEPARTMENTS ABOUT DISCIPLINARY MATTERS AND OFTEN THEY WILL HOLD OFF, UM, ON, UH, TAKING ANY ACTION UNLESS, AND UNTIL THE, YOU KNOW, RELEVANT DA COMES UP WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES, EVEN THOUGH, AS KELLY EXPLAINED, THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE STANDARDS.
THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESSES.
SO RESPECTFULLY, I THINK POLICE DEPARTMENTS DO THAT ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF MY FOIL REQUEST, I WOULD SUBMIT, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
SO WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S BEEN INFORMATIVE ON ALL SIDES OF THE TABLE.
AND I THINK I'M GONNA GO TAKE, UH, THE SATS BECAUSE I LEARNED A LOT.
NO, THE COMMITTEE ACTUALLY, THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF TRAINING.
THE COMMITTEE IS REALLY GREAT FOR FOIL STUFF AND THEY'RE VERY ACCESSIBLE AS, UH, MR. FINER SAID, YEAH, I TOOK THE LSTS AND THE BAR EXAM.
SO BEFORE YOU DO, I JUST WANNA ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THE TOWN TOWN CLERK AND THE, UH, OTHER, OTHER THAN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOIL PROCESS HERE WITHIN THE TOWN.
DO YOU WANT TO AGREE TO A TIMEFRAME GOING FORWARD? BECAUSE AS YOU, AS YOU HAVE, UM, I, YOU KNOW, INDICATED WE'RE ALREADY PRETTY MUCH OUTSIDE OF THE, THE, THE APPEAL FRAME RIGHT.
SO DO YOU WANNA PROPOSE A TIMEFRAME? UM, SURE.
WE'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS A TIMEFRAME.
SO WE'RE ALREADY OUTSIDE OF THE 10 DAYS.
UM, THOUGH I THINK IT'S CLOSE JUST 10 BUSINESS DAYS EITHER.
IT'S 10 DAYS FROM BUSINESS DAYS.
IT'S 10 BUSINESS'S 10 BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE FIRST NOTICE OF A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL.
UM, AND SO WITH THE HOLIDAY, I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE BUSINESS DAY'S FALLEN, BUT I BELIEVE WE'VE EXCEEDED THAT ALREADY.
UM, IF, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD MM-HMM.
WANTS TO CONSIDER THIS AND THERE'S A LOT GOING ON.
WOULD THAT WORK FOR THE BOARD? WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING, GOING TO SPEAK TO THE CHIEF, RIGHT.
LET'S SEE WHAT, WHETHER HE CAN WORK WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK TO, WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RUNNING INTO COURT TOMORROW WITH AN ARTICLE 78.
BUT THIS IS A VERY NEWSWORTHY EVENT.
UM, AND ASHER HAS IMPORTANT WORK TO DO WITH RESPECT TO IT.
SO WE JUST AT LEAST KNOW THE SCOPE, RIGHT.
OF THE, WHAT WE'RE GONNA GET END OF THE DAY.
UM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
SO ANY INFORMATION, UM, THAT THE BOARD CAN PROVIDE IN THE INTERVENING TIME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WOULD, WOULD TWO WEEKS BE RIGHT? WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT HAVING MUCH OF A WORK SESSION NEXT WEEK BECAUSE WE WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO TODAY, NEXT WEEK.
AND, UM, SO I THINK TWO WEEKS WOULD HELP US, 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO SPEAK TO OUR TOWN ATTORNEY.
UM, WOULD, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE? I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU, YOU WOULD
[01:00:01]
KEPT BEHIND.YEAH, I THINK, I THINK TOO, IN THE MEANTIME, THANK YOU.
OUR POLICE CHIEF IS, IS, IS, IS, IS VERY FORTHCOMING, AS YOU CAN TELL.
HE, IT SEEMS WONDERFUL THAT HE WOULD JUMP AT SIX O'CLOCK AT, AND HE JUST JUMPED ON.
SO THAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.
APPRECIATE AND REACH OUT WITH ANYTHING YOU WANT.
UNLESS THE BOARD, DOES THE BOARD NEED MICHAEL OR NOT RIGHT NOW? NO.
THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT.
JUST GEORGE, YOU SAID THAT YOU USE A DIFFERENT STORAGE SYSTEM.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS THAT WE, WE COME TOGETHER AND WE DECIDE THAT THERE'S ONE, UM, STORAGE SYSTEM, LONG-TERM DIGITAL STORAGE SYSTEM FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS AND NOT EACH DEPARTMENT DECIDING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE.
SO WE NEED COMPATIBILITY IS GOOD.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE STORAGE SYSTEM THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS? GEORGE, DID HE LEAVE GEORGE? HE MIGHT'VE LEFT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE? I WAS TEXTING WITH HIM EARLIER.
NO, IT'S JUST THAT, IT JUST, JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A GENERAL, GENERAL STATEMENT.
YOU KNOW, LA LASER FEES SOUNDS REALLY GOOD AND, UM, BUT I, I'D LIKE IT TO APPLY TO EVERYBODY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AS OPPOSED TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT THINK THAT THEY WANT TO TRY AND DO IT.
SO WHAT, SO WHAT PROCEDURE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN PLACE? WHAT EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN PLACE TO EITHER, UM, REQUIRE THAT AND BY WHAT DEADLINE? UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS THAT SAID THEY HAVE HAD A, UH, UH, A DIGITAL, UM, UH, STORAGE PROCESS IN PLACE, AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD A LONGSTANDING, UM, UH, UH, DIGITAL, UH, UM, STORAGE PROCEDURE.
THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE HAS HAD, UM, LASER FISH AND I WANT TO REMAIN WITH LASER FISH.
IT'S, IT'S, UH, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE OFFERING, THEY'RE PROVIDING A MAJOR UPGRADE TO THE SYSTEM.
UM, SOME OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'VE BEEN, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS NOT EVEN, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THE UPGRADES THAT THEY'RE OFFERING.
SO I WANNA KNOW WHY YOU DID NOT BRING THIS UP 18 MONTHS AGO WHEN WE FIRST BEGAN THIS PROCESS.
IF YOUR CONCERN OR, OR YOUR DESIRE WAS FOR A UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT? WE HAVE BEEN GOING ON, AND THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE INEFFECTIVE, UH, UM, UH, UM, UM, APPROACH TOWARDS ITS MANAGEMENT.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH GENERAL CODE FOR OVER 18 MONTHS TO LOOK AT THE UPGRADES OF THIS SYSTEM, LASERFICHE, THAT TWO DEPARTMENTS IN THE TOWN HAVE BEEN USING FOR SEVERAL YEARS, THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
WE COULD HAVE GO, I COULD HAVE GONE AHEAD AND JUST MADE A REQUEST FOR AN UPGRADE JUST FOR THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS, SINCE WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE BEEN USING IT.
BUT BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS WELL, IN TERMS OF UPGRADING, USING MORE STATE OF THE ART, UH, UM, SOFTWARE.
I REACHED OUT TO INCLUDE ALL DEPARTMENTS.
THE TOWN BOARD HAS BEEN A PART OF THIS COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH FOR 18 MONTHS.
AND I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IT NOW THAT WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE FOR THE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THE UPGRADES ON THIS SOFTWARE.
YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME TO MAKE IT A UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT REQUIRING THE ALL DEPARTMENTS OH, YOU'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT REQUIRING, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GONE THERE YET.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PROPOSE TO REQUIRE? AND BY WHAT, WITHIN WHAT TIMEFRAME TO REQUIRE THE OLD DEPARTMENTS GO WITH LASER FISH?
[01:05:02]
ARE YOU FINISHED? I DON'T KNOW.I MAY OR MAY NOT BE FINISHED RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE I, I PUT A QUESTION ON THE TABLE.
SO I WOULD NOT THINK THAT ANY ORGANIZATION WOULD EVEN DREAM OF HAVING MULTIPLE STORAGE SYSTEMS FOR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN SOMEBODY'S GONNA BE SEARCHING RECORDS ACROSS MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS.
AND THEN ONE WOULD BE USING LASERFICHE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS USING.
AND IF IT'S, AND IF WE ADOPT THIS, THEY WILL CONSIDER IT.
UH, ALL I'M SAYING IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ASK.
IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHATEVER WE ADOPT, BE THE STANDARD FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS AND NOT JUST PUT OUT AN EMAIL.
WHICH DEPARTMENTS WOULD LIKE TO USE LASERFICHE? THOSE THAT DO SHOW UP, THOSE THAT DON'T.
DO THEY USE SOMETHING ELSE? ARE THEY FREE? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD IN 2016.
AND IT GOES BACK TO THE M I S COMMITTEE WHERE WE, WHERE WE HAD DIFFERENT SOFTWARE IN EACH DEPARTMENT AND THEY DIDN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER, AND YOU HAD TO DO A DATA DUMP AND THEN BRING IT BACK UP FOR A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT TO USE IT.
PROPER PLANNING TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION COMMUNICATION AMONG ALL DEPARTMENTS AND ALL PLATFORMS. AND IF WE WANNA MAKE IT EASY TO DO A SEARCH AMONG ALL DEPARTMENTS DOCUMENTS, YOU HAVE THE SAME PLATFORM.
AND SO IT, IT'S, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH VERSION, WHAT THEY'RE USING? I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THING FRANCIS.
UM, UH, THAT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND OUT.
I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE, THAT WOULD CO I WANT NO, NO, NO.
I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO, BECAUSE WHY WOULD IT BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY? BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SAID THAT I, UH, AM, AM ADVOCATING A UNIVERSAL STORAGE FORMAT.
SO IF THAT'S WHAT HE'S INTERESTED IN, HE NEEDS TO FIND OUT WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS USING, PLUS THE TOWN BOARD SUPERVISES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T, I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ME.
BUT I WANNA GO BACK TO THE POINT THAT FRANCIS MADE A FEW MINUTES AGO.
WHAT AGENCY WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE STORAGE SYSTEMS? YOU KNOW, THIS AGENCY, THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, HAS HAD MULTIPLE STORAGE SYSTEMS SINCE BEFORE YOU BECAME A TOWN COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND SINCE YOU'VE BEEN A TOWN COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAVE NOT RAISED THIS QUESTION OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS THAT I HAVE BEEN SENDING EMAILS TO THE TOWN BOARD, UPDATING THEM ON THE, ON THE MEETINGS, ON THE TRAININGS, ON THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING ADOPTING AN UPDATE UPDATED VERSION OF LASER FEES, YOU HAVE ONLY DECIDED THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WANT TO CALL FOR A UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT AFTER, AFTER THE TIME HAS BEEN INVESTED.
IN REVIEWING AND CONSIDERING UPDATING LA BEACH AS TOWN CLERK, I DON'T WANT TO USE ANOTHER STORAGE SYSTEM.
WE HAVE BEEN USING LASER FEATURE AND WE NEED THE UPDATED VERSION.
IT IS BAFFLING TO ME AS TO WHY EVERY TIME THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE REQUESTS AN UPDATE FOR SOFTWARE, IT'S EITHER TURNED DOWN.
I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL YEARS FOR SEVERAL YEARS FOR FOIL SOFTWARE.
NOW WITH A FOIL SOFTWARE BUILT INTO A FOIL SOFTWARE SYSTEM, THERE ARE NUMEROUS REMINDERS AND UPDATES THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY SENT OUT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS.
WE WOULD NOT FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE A FOIL, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS IN THIS TOWN, FOILS ARE NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME OF NEW YORK STATE LAW.
THIS TOWN AND THE RESIDENTS IN THIS TOWN ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN MORE ARTICLE 70 EIGHTS FILED AGAINST THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
[01:10:01]
WHICH MEANS, WHICH COULD, COULD, COULD MEAN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEING PAID OUT FOR, UM, NOT FOLLOWING THE FOIL PROCESS.NOW, GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN REQUESTING FOR SEVERAL YEARS FOIL SOFTWARE, I HAVE BEEN REQUESTING, UM, UM, UM, A, UH, RECENTLY, I, I REQUESTED THE, A PART-TIME POSITION BE EXPANDED TO A FULL-TIME POSITION.
THAT REQUEST WAS GRANTED FOR THE ASSESSOR'S DEPARTMENT, THE COMPTROLLER'S DEPARTMENT, THE COURTS.
AND OUT OF THE FOUR WOMEN WHO MADE THAT REQUEST, I, THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN ONE IN THE ENTIRE GROUP WAS TURNED DOWN.
AND I'M TOLD THAT I WAS TURNED DOWN BECAUSE FRANCIS SHEEN, UH, HAD SAID THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO IT.
AND THEN ALL OF HIS OTHER, UM, UH, UH, UH, SUPPORTERS EXCEPT PAUL FELL BEHIND, FELL IN SUPPORT ANYTIME I HAVE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, FRANCIS, SHE SINCE 2018, WHEN HE ORCHESTRATED THE DISRUPTION OF MY DEPARTMENT BY CREATING A, A POSITION CALLED TOWN COUNCIL AIDE FOR A WOMAN WHO REFUSED TO TRAIN A WHITE WOMAN WHO REFUSED TO TRAIN AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN EVER SINCE THEN.
AND THE FACT THAT I HAVE CONTINUED TO, UH, UM, REMIND THE PUBLIC OF THAT HE HAS ORCHESTRATED THE REFUSAL OF ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW THAT.
NOW HERE WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR AN UPDATE OF A SOFTWARE, A RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE.
THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED, IS MANDATED BY THE STATE TO PROVIDE TO, TO, TO, UM, MANAGE RECORDS FOR THE TOWN.
I'M ASKING FOR A MANAGEMENT UP, A SOFTWARE UPDATE, THE UPDATED VERSION OF A SOFTWARE WE'VE BEEN USING.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, FRANCIS HAN WANTS EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD IN THE TOWN TO ADOPT THE SAME SOFTWARE.
BUT HE'S NOT SAYING THAT HE'S GOING TO REQUIRE THIS OF EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISION COULD REMAIN OPEN INDEFINITELY.
SABOTAGING THE EFFORTS OF THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC.
NOW, WHILE YOU WAIT FOR THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO USE LASER FEES, I'M ASKING THIS BOARD TO APPROVE THE UPDATED VERSION FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
SO AT LEAST THE CLERK'S OFFICE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE UPDATED VERSION OF A SOFTWARE THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE SINCE SUSAN, SUSAN TOLSON WAS THE TOWN CLERK.
I'M ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE UPDATE.
IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO COMMIT TO A TIMEFRAME TO REQUIRING OTHER ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, SEVERAL DEPARTMENT HEADS SAID THAT THEY WERE VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN IT.
THERE ARE FIVE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO WANT IT RIGHT AWAY.
FIVE DEPARTMENT HEADS IN ADDITION TO THE TWO THAT ALREADY NO.
THERE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE WHO, WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THE REQUEST PRIOR TO, UM, UH, FRANCIS WANT SAYING TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO THAT HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO.
SO, SO WHEN I FIRST, WHEN, WHEN WE, IT'S, IT'S BEEN 18 MONTHS IN THE MAKING.
THEN I, THEN I BROUGHT, I BROUGHT THE PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM LASERFICHE.
I'M GLAD THAT I'M TAKING THIS HERE.
I HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THIS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW THE OBSTACLES THAT FRANCIS SHEEN CONSISTENTLY PUTS IN THE WAY OF EFFORTS BY THE TOWN CLERK TO UPDATE SOFTWARE AND RESOURCES IN THIS OFFICE NOW.
SO, NO, DON'T, PLEASE DO NOT INTERRUPT ME.
YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF TALKING, BUT PLEASE, YOU KNOW WHAT? THANK YOU.
I NEEDED TO, PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT ME.
SO, SO, SO THE, THE PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED
[01:15:01]
TO THE BOARD A FEW WEEKS AGO.PAUL SAID, UH, LET'S CONSIDER IT AROUND THE 1ST OF JUNE.
BUT IT'S ONLY, UH, AFTER FRANCIS, UH, INDICATED THAT HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THE SOFTWARE.
OKAY? THE ONLY DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HAVE BEEN USING THE SOFTWARE WERE MYSELF AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
HE'S, HE HAS NOT ASKED TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT IT AT ALL.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF HE HAS SPOKEN TO THE BUSINESS INSPECTOR.
I MEAN, UH, UH, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.
IN THE MEANTIME, I CONTACTED THE UH, UM, CONTRACTOR.
I SET UP AN ADDITIONAL TRAINING SESSION, INVITED EVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD CC'D THE TOWN BOARD ON IT.
THERE'S NO SECRETS GOING ON HERE.
THERE'S NO HIDDEN AGENDAS GOING ON HERE.
AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ATTENDED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE A, UM, HAVE HAD A, UH, STANDARD, UM, UH, STORAGE FORMAT IN PLACE FOR, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG.
BUT ANYHOW, BE THAT AS IT MAY, I PROVIDED A REPORT TO YOU ABOUT THOSE WHO ATTENDED.
AND THERE WERE A FEW OTHERS WHO SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE SOFTWARE.
SO NOW WHAT FRANCIS IS SAYING, AND I DON'T HEAR THE OPINION FROM ANYBODY ELSE HERE.
DON'T ANY OF YOU BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AN OPINION? YEAH.
TRIED TO TALK A FEW MINUTES AGO.
THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF WHAT FRANCIS SAYS, RIGHT? BUT I NEED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO YOUR GASLIGHTING.
I NEED TO RESPOND TO YOUR GASLIGHTING.
WELL, GAS, NOT FRANCIS, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIGHTING.
THIS IS ABOUT, NOW IT'S MY TURN.
LET WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, JUDITH, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO STOP.
YOU ARE DISTORTING, YOU ARE LYING, YOU'RE DISTORTING, YOU'RE REVEALED, YOU'RE DISTORTING AND YOU'RE LYING.
OKAY? NOBODY, NOBODY WANTS TO PRESERVE RECORDS MORE THAN I, BECAUSE OUR CLERK'S OFFICE SHREDDED 15 CARTONS, BIG BOXES OF RECORDS ACCIDENTALLY.
SHE DIDN'T REVEAL THAT TO ANYBODY.
SHE DIDN'T REVEAL THAT AT ALL.
IT MIGHT BE, BUT I'M NOT GONNA LET YOU TELL LIES.
THERE ARE 15, MIGHT'VE BEEN 17, BUT LET'S GO WITH 15 BOXES.
CASES OF DOCUMENTS THAT YOUR OFFICE UNDER YOU.
SUPPOSEDLY OUR PROTECTOR OF OUR RECORDS HAD SHREDDED INSTEAD OF FILED IN OUR RECORDS OFFICE ROOM.
AND WE WOULD'VE NEVER KNOWN THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY SUED US.
AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEEDED WERE IN ONE OF THOSE RECORDS THAT WERE SHREDDED AND WE COULDN'T FIND IT.
AND ONLY THEN WAS IT REVEALED WHAT YOUR OFFICE DID.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACTUAL BOXES WERE SHREDDED ON NEW YORK.
CHRIS, YOU'RE REFERRING TO AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED WELL OVER 10 YEARS AGO.
I'M GLAD YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAPPENED.
IT'S NO, I'M I'M JUST SAYING IT IS NOT, LISTEN, IT'S NOT, I'M NOT DONE.
NOT LISTEN, I'M NOT DONE, DAVID.
RECORDS OF YOU'RE PROTECT, TAKE A SLEEPING PILL.
NO, THOSE RECORDS, JUDITH DESIGNATED FOR DESTRUCTION.
THEY WERE NOT DESIGNATED FOR DESTRUCTION.
SOME OF THEM HAD A 19 YEAR STORAGE.
THEY WERE FRANCE, THEY WERE DESIGNATED FOR.
BUT WHAT, THIS IS EASILY PROVABLE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAS, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I'M ASKING FOR, IF WE HAD LASER FEES OR SOMETHING OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO BETTER DEFEND OURSELVES IN COURT BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE RECORDS THAT WERE UNDER YOUR CONTROL THAT YOU LET BE SHREDDED.
THOSE RECORDS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SCANNED INTO LASER FEES.
FRANCIS, LET'S GET TO THE NO, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SHELF.
WHY, WHY PULLED IT UP THE PROCESS? PLEASE, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO LET THE OTHER PERSON BUT HOLD THE PROCESS.
YOU SHUT HER DOWN AT SOME POINT.
YOU, ELLEN ASKED ME A QUESTION.
'CAUSE IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT MATTERS.
[01:20:01]
RESPONDING.THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I SAID SOMETHING.
BUT THE SECOND TIME YOU TOLD ME YOU WEREN'T FINISHED.
YOU KEEP SAYING WASN'T I WASN'T FINISHED.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE THIS? THIS IS, THIS IS NOT THE FOURTH.
BUT, BUT I CANNOT HAVE HER CONSTANTLY.
HOW CONSTANTLY REPEAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT HOW YOUR OFFICE WAS DESTROYED IN 2018.
YOU PUT A SIGN UP, I DISMANTLED BY YOU DISMANTLED.
AND YOU PUT A SIGNUPS OUTSIDE THE DOOR, DIS YOUR DOOR THAT SAID THE OFFICE IS CLOSED BECAUSE THE TOWN BOARD HAS DISMANTLED THE, UH, MY OFFICE.
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO THE STUFF IN THERE YOURSELF.
SO YOU HAD TO CLOSE THE OFFICE.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU HAD PEOPLE WORKING IN THAT.
I'M JUST GONNA RESPOND TO WHAT YOU SAY.
YOU HAD THREE PEOPLE WORKING IN THERE, FANTASTIC PEOPLE.
THEY COULD DO THE WORK OF SIX NINE.
THEY WERE, THEY WERE, THEY WERE SYMBIOTIC.
THEY WERE GREAT SYSTEMATICALLY.
YOU GOT RID OF EACH ONE OF THEM.
YOU DID RID OF DID HAVE YOU DID NOT HAVE YOU.
YOUR OFFICE HAS THE I HAD TWO EMPLOYEES.
YOUR OFFICE HAS THE HIGHEST TURNOVER RATE.
I'M GETTING TO, IT DOESN'T, I'M GETTING TO INSUBORDINATION WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS I PROTECT THE RECORDS.
LEMME FINISH, LEMME FINISH LEFT.
YOU, YOU'RE FABRICATING FRANCIS.
I'M NOT FABRICATING, I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE SHREDDED DOCUMENTS LEFT US NOTHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, FRANCIS.
BECAUSE WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR DOCUMENTS.
I WANNA PROTECT THE DOCUMENTS.
WHAT? I SAID, WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY 18 MONTHS? I SAID 18 AGO.
THE REPORT CAME BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, 18 MONTHS AGO.
THE REPORT CAME BACK, THE BEGINNING OF THIS.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT IF YOU JUST TELL HER TO BE QUIET, I'M DOING THIS.
NO, BUT YOU SEE PAUL, WHILE SHE SPEAKS, WHEN SHE GASLIGHTS, YOU REMAIN SILENT.
AND WHEN SOMEBODY THEN TRIES TO EXPLAIN WHY SHE'S WRONG OF A SUDDEN, ACCORDING TO YOU, I HER PONTIFICATE, I JUST MADE IT VERY CLEAR.
I MADE IT VERY CLEAR, YOU'RE LYING.
I MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT I WANTED THIS TO APPLY TO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS.
YOU NEVER SAID THIS 18 MONTHS AGO.
YOU DIDN'T 18, BECAUSE I THINK A PROFESSIONAL WHO IS TAKING CARE OF DATA STORAGE WOULD SAY YES, YOU CAN'T HAVE DIFFERENT DATA STORAGE.
I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY THAT EVEN YOU WOULD THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE DIFFERENT LONG-TERM STORAGE, UM, UM, SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
AND PEOPLE HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO SEARCH EACH ONE.
YOU, THAT'S JUST HOW IT, A BOARD MEMBER WHO SUPERVISES DEPARTMENT HEADS, YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT KIND OF STORAGE SYSTEMS EXIST IN THE TOWN.
I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING THAT ACCOUNTABLE TO ME.
SO YOU SHOULDA HAVE NO FRANCIS, ONCE AGAIN, THINGS WERE GOING ON.
AND THE FACT THAT ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE SYSTEM.
YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SINCE YOU ARE SO INTERESTED AND SINCE WE, WE HAVE BEEN, I INTRODUCED THIS PROCEDURE, THIS PROCESS 18 MONTHS AGO, TO CONSIDER THE UPDATE TO LASERFICHE.
AND YOU NEVER SAID THEM OUT THE BEGINNING OF THE, YOU NEVER SAID A MUMBLING WORD OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 18 MONTHS THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A, YOU WANTED A UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT.
YOU NEVER S WHAT IS WRONG WITH A UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING WAS WRONG WITH IT.
WHY NEVER SPUTTERED ANY, SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT FOR 18 MONTHS UNTIL NOW.
THE REPORT CAME AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, FRANCIS, OVER THE ONCE AGAIN, THAT LIGHTED OVER THE COURSE OF THE 18 MONTHS.
18 MONTHS MEETING WITH THIS COMPANY.
WE AND I HAVE BEEN SENDING YOU EMAILS, COPYING THEM TO THE BOARD, COPYING THESE EMAILS TO ALL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING THAT THIS IS A, IT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD SYSTEM.
WE JUST NEED TO APPLY TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
I'VE MADE THIS PROCESS APPARENTLY.
BUT FRANCIS, I'M ASKING YOU, WHAT ARE YOU AND THE BOARD MEMBERS WILLING TO DO TO REQUIRE, TO REQUIRE THAT IT'LL APPLIED TO ALL DEPARTMENTS.
[01:25:01]
TO DO? WELL, THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THIS WHEN THEY'RE NOT BEING INTERRUPTED BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY OBJECTION FROM THE TOWN BOARD STATING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE SYSTEM FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS.NOW, MAYBE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEEDS SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF SECURITY PURPOSES, BUT THEY HAVEN'T EXPRESSED THAT TO ME.
THEY, THEY JUST SAID THERE'S A DIFFERENT ONE.
AND THE FACT THAT YOU ARE, IF YOU CAME TO US AND SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO DO LASERFICHE FOR THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT, THAT'S IT.
YOU STARTED SAYING, AND LET'S USE IT HERE AND LET'S USE IT THERE.
AND IT GOT TO A POINT WHERE THERE'S ENOUGH DEPARTMENTS, THERE ARE ENOUGH DEPARTMENTS USING IT THAT WE SHOULD MAKE IT A STATE.
I, THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN SAYING IS, AND THEN ALL THIS STUFF IS, WE JUST WANT, BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF MY LEVEL OF TRAINING AS AN ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY CAME FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO UPDATE THIS SOFTWARE, I THINK IN TERMS OF A TEAM, AND I PUT THAT INFORMATION OUT TO SHARE IT WITH ALL OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS AT THAT TIME, 18 MONTHS AGO, AND YOU WERE ALSO TOWN BOARD WAS ALSO RE WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT EMAIL AT THAT TIME.
YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, OH, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD APPLY TO ALL DEPARTMENTS.
BUT YOU NEVER MUMBLED A WORD ABOUT THAT THOUGHT UNTIL NOW WHEN THE DECISION IS BEFORE YOU TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOFTWARE.
SO AGAIN, I REITERATE WHAT IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE UNIVERSALLY ADOPTED, WHAT, UH, DECISION OR REQUIREMENT ARE, WERE YOU WILLING TO MAKE TO ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT THEY ADOPT THIS UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT CALLED LASERFICHE? I THINK WE NEED TO, WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? WE NEED TO MOVE ON.
SO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COMMIT TOWN, DISCUSS THIS TO TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE TOWN BOARD, YOU'RE NOT GONNA COMMIT WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY, YOU'RE WHAT WAS YOUR ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN YOU WERE SHREDDING BOXES? I WAS NOT SURE.
AND NO, AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A UNDER YOUR, UNDER YOUR, THAT IS A NON-ISSUE.
IT WAS PROVING A NON-ISSUE AT THE POINT WHERE YOU TRIED TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE.
SO GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, RIGHT, WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO TO ATTEMPT TO, TO ADDRESS REQUIRING OLD DEPARTMENT HEADS TO ADOPT THIS UNIVERSAL DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT? IT'S NOT HEAVY.
MAY I, MAY I, UNLESS I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.
DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE WHEN YOU'RE PAYING OUT A LOT OF MONEY, AND I THINK I SAID THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, TO GET AS MANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS, IF NOT ALL, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE GOOD SENSE FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.
SO LET US HAVE THAT DISCUSSION MM-HMM.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, I JUST WANNA SAY TO YOUR, TO YOU, ELLEN, SINCE YOU ARE PUTTING THE QUESTION OUT THERE, THAT ON THE MORE DEPARTMENTS WE HAVE INVOLVED, THE MORE LICENSES IT WILL INVOLVE.
AND EACH LICENSE COSTS A A PARTICULAR FEE.
NOW THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT EVERY ONE IN EVERY ONE, ONE WAY OF COST SAVING ON THIS IS TO, TO LOOK AT AND ASK THE QUESTION, ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT EVERY PERSON IN EVERY DEPARTMENT REALLY NEEDS A LICENSE OR JUST THOSE PEOPLE WHO DEPARTMENT HEADS DESIGNATE AS THE ONES WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCANNING, UH, AND ACCESSING LASER FEATURE.
NOW, NOW THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF LICENSES TOO.
THERE IS A, UM, ACCESS ONLY, LIKE A READ ONLY LICENSE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A LICENSE THAT ALLOWS FOR, FOR INPUT AND, AND AND MANEUVERING INFORMATION WITHIN FULL ACCESS IN UH, FULL ACCESS.
SO, SO I'M TRYING, I'M JUST TRYING BE CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE EXPLAINING SO WE'RE CLEAR.
SO I'M EXPLAINING, I'M EXPLAINING, BUT THAT'S WHY I WANNA BE CLEAR, JUDITH, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.
IS THAT ONE FULL ACCESS? SO, SO WHAT I'M ABOUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I AM EXPLAINING WHAT THE, THE, UM, OWNER OF THE COMPANY SHARED WITH ME.
HE DID NOT USE THE TERM FULL ACCESS, BUT
[01:30:01]
IN, IN, IF, IF THAT'S HOW YOU CHOOSE TO INTERPRET IT.I'M NOT GONNA DEBATE THAT, BUT I'M, I'M ANSWERING ELLEN'S QUESTION, SO I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF LICENSES, ALRIGHT? AND, UM, AGAIN, ONE REQUIRE, ONE INVOLVES, UM, BEING ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, VIEW THE INFORMATION.
THE OTHER INVOLVES BEING ABLE TO, UH, WORK WITH THE INFORMATION, FULL ACCESS.
I GUESS NOW THE MORE PEOPLE YOU HAVE WITH THOSE LICENSES, THE MORE THE, THE USAGE FEE IS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT.
RIGHT? SO, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED.
A NUMBER I PUT IN WRITING TO, I PUT THIS IN WRITING TO THE BOARD.
I, I, I'M, I'M JUST BAFFLED OKAY.
AS TO WHY I'M GETTING ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT INFORMATION THAT I'VE ALREADY PUT IN WRITING.
SO, AND IT WAS, WAS INFORMATION IN THE PRESENTATION.
IT WAS IN WRITING TWO WEEKS AGO.
I I DIDN'T, THAT WASN'T REALLY, I, I DIDN'T FINISH WHERE I WAS GOING.
I WAS JUST GIVING YOU THE RESPECT OF LETTING YOU RESPOND.
YES, IT WILL COST MORE MONEY, BUT IT, THERE IS ALSO AN ECONOMY OF SCALE.
AND I WOULD IMAGINE IF THERE ARE, HOW MANY OTHER SYSTEMS BEING EMPLOYED NOW THROUGHOUT THE TOWN? AT LEAST THREE.
AND EACH ONE IS PAYING LICENSE FEES.
I WOULD IMAGINE EACH ONE WILL HAVE AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR OR NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, AN UPGRADE THAT WILL REQUIRE A, AN INITIAL, UM, AN INITIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY JUST AS THIS DOES.
AND THEN THE, THE YEARLY FEES.
SO IT'S WORTH US HAVING THE DISCUSSION, BUT HAVING THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE ALSO FROM A FINANCIAL POINT.
SO FRANCIS FIRST OF ALL SAID, MADE A GOOD POINT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE HAS UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO THE SAME SYSTEM AND BACKUP.
AND TWO, IT MIGHT BE MORE FINANCIALLY PRUDENT FOR THE TOWN TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON ON THAT ACCESS.
NOW CHANGE IS DIFFICULT AND PEOPLE WILL RESIST CHANGE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE'S A LEARNING CURVE TO THAT.
SO OF COURSE THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME RESISTANCE AND MAYBE THERE'S GOOD REASON, AS FRANCIS MENTIONED, FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR SECURITY REASONS.
FOR INSTANCE, THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN FOIL OFFICER AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
AND SO FAR NOTHING'S GOTTEN DONE.
IT JUST, IT JUST COMES UP WITH EXCUSES TO PROLONG, PROLONG, PROLONG.
I, I'M WONDERING, THIS IS WHAT, LIKE MY FREEDOM INFORMATION, THIS IS OUT OF THE BOX, SO IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD IDEA.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING IF WE, UH, SPOKE TO THE PERSON WHO WE MET LAST WEEK, AND I'M WONDERING IF THEY WOULD LET YOU, I'M JUST THROWING OUT AN IDEA.
LET'S SAY THEY LET YOU TRY IT IN YOUR DEPARTMENT AND THEN MAYBE INSTEAD OF SAYING WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMY OF SCALE, THAT THEY GAVE US A, UH, WINDOW WHERE WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DEC YOU KNOW, WHERE JUDITH'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, COULD START, YOU KNOW, COULD USE IT.
THERE COULD BE A A, A WINDOW, UM, WHERE THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
THEN, THEN JUDITH COULD BASICALLY SHOW THE OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS, YOU KNOW, HOW IT WORKS.
IF IT WORKS, IF THEY LIKE IT, IT IS ALREADY WORKING IN ONE DEPARTMENT, THEN MAYBE THEY WOULD GIVE US, MAYBE THEM ALREADY, LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN USING IT.
RICH FAWN IN, IN A PREVIOUS, UM, UH, POSITION PRIOR TO COMING TO TO, TO GREENBURG, HE USED IT AND HE PRAISES IT HIGHLY.
HE'S OUR, OUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS NEXT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ONE OF THE LARGEST DEPARTMENTS IN THE TOWN.
AND, AND HE HAS, YOU KNOW, HE SAID, I WANT THIS SYSTEM IN MY DEPARTMENT.
SO WHY CAN'T WE, GARRETT DUCANE WANTS THE, THE SYSTEM IN THIS DEPARTMENT.
WHY CAN'T WE BASICALLY SAY DEEPAK HAS APPROVED IT AND APPROVED THE NO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THIS.
I'M JUST SAY NO, LEMME JUST SAY, WHY CAN'T WE SAY, UM, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT WANT, OKAY.
AND THEN MAYBE WE COULD REACH OUT TO THE COMPANY AND SAY, THAT'S IS VERY POOR MANAGEMENT, PAUL.
WELL, IT'S NOT POOR MANAGEMENT.
IT'S NOT POOR MANAGEMENT BACK PAGE.
[01:35:01]
I'M SUGGESTING MANAGEMENT.SO FRANCIS IS SAYING, SO FRANCIS IS BRINGING UP A POINT.
HE'S SAYING IT'S POOR MANAGEMENT.
AND BASICALLY WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT IT'S BEEN POOR MANAGEMENT ALL ALONG IN THIS TOWN BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT STORAGE.
YOU'RE GET AN ARGUMENT FROM ME.
YOU DON'T WANNA GET AN ARGUMENT FROM ME ON THAT.
I WANNA GET THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
WE, WE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO 18 MONTHS TO ADDRESS THIS.
THE BEGINNING, THE POINT IS THAT YOU DRAGGED
SOMETHING CAME BEFORE US ON A RESOLUTION AND I QUESTIONED IT AND I'M, I'M STILL BAFFLED, BUT I SHOULDN'T BE AS TO WHY YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY TO NOT TAKE THE SAME POSITION AS ME 18 MONTHS AGO SAYING THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO, LIKE WE DID WITH OUR OUR SOFTWARE, IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A, A, A ACROSS THE BOARD SYSTEM, ONE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW.
AND THIS THING IS NOT CHEAP, RIGHT? IT'S 52,000.
$52,000 SET UP, $32,000 EVERY YEAR.
THAT'S JUST ON THE NUMBER OF LICENSES WE HAVE.
NOW YOU WANNA VIEW THE DATA? I CAN EXPLAIN, IF YOU COULDN'T EXPLAIN THAT, I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOUS ALL YOU, THERE ARE TWO LICENSES, LET ME FINISH.
THERE ARE TWO LICENSES, ONE FOR $120.
THE OTHER LICENSE ALLOWS YOU TO ACTUALLY SCAN, UPLOAD, MANIPULATE THE DATA.
BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, THAT'S WHAT GINA IS TALKING ABOUT IS FULL ACCESS.
BUT EXPLAIN THAT, ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
NO, I, YOU, I DON'T NEED TO PIRATE IN MY EAR.
YOU'RE YOU'RE PROJECTING DON'T, YOU'RE WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU, WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU, YOU IS WHAT I, WHAT I HAVE SAID.
LISTEN, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, YOU DIDN'T SAY THE FACT AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
YOU NEVER, YOU DIDN'T TAKE RESPECT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
EXCEPT THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESPECTED THE BOARD.
HAVE TO THIS YOU HAVE NOT FRANCIS, YOU NOT.