The Fraud of "Transparency" in the Government - How the Freedom of Information Act Only Works Against You

Out of what seems to be pure bureaucratic boredom, the zoning commission is moving to prohibit electronic digital signage in town. Worcester Sign Company's Jacob Damien is understandably upset. He believes the city manager is making back door deals with regard to zoning for electronic signs. In protest, Mr. Jacob Damien attempted to exercise his rights in accordance with the FOIA to investigate the matter and has made a request for the city manager's cell phone calls.

Here's how that went:

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreoli, Christina [mailto:AndreoliC@worcesterma.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:22 PM
To: damien@worcestersigns.com
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request

Mr. Jacob:
Sorry for my delay. I'm not trying to being difficult and I would like to assist with your requests. If you provide detail on the issues you mention, we will look into it or you may seek legal recourse by filing a claim through the city clerk to the law department.

With regard to your public records requests, the requirements of the Public Records Law are what they are. For example, the Public Records Law prohibits the release of the home telephone number of city employees. Therefore, the telephone log you request must be reviewed for that purpose and the home telephone numbers redacted. Once these documents are reviewed, you could also come in to review the records under supervision if you'd like, which would lower the cost. Otherwise, we will proceed upon receipt of your payment.

Thank you.
Christina

-----Original Message-----
From: Damien Jacob [mailto:damien@worcestersigns.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:08 AM
To: 'Andreoli, Christina'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

Hello Christina,

I have no objections, if you need to redact telephone numbers of City Employees, so long as the employee's whose number is redacted is identified and the remaining information such as the time and date remain intact. The reason being that the phone number is the identifying element, but if you identify the party by name, then the actual phone number is not necessary.

I can come in to review the records or pick them up, whichever is more convenient for you.

If you are in agreement to provide the Identification of the party whose number is redacted, then I will proceed with payment.

Thank You,

Damien



----- Forwarded message from damien@worcestersigns.com -----
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:13:27 -0400
From: Damien Jacob
Reply-To: damien@worcestersigns.com
Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act Request
To: "'Andreoli, Christina'"

Hello Christina,

I write to you to emphasize my desire to acquire the City Managers Feb. 2010 phone records. I understand that I have been sporadic with my emails, however you have shown to be responsive and I hope that this FOIR can be resolved within the near future.

If you agree to identify, by name, the phone numbers of those who you
redacted, then I will promptly pay the $715.

Thank you,

Damien


Notice how the exchange ends with the city charging Mr Jacob $715 for a copy of a phone bill that will undoubtedly be "blacked-out"...