<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Inter-agency Archives | The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rcfp.org/tag/inter-agency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rcfp.org/tag/inter-agency/</link>
	<description>A 501(c)(3) nonprofit association dedicated to assisting journalists since 1970.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 02:22:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">198364717</site>	<item>
		<title>N.Y. appeals court rules agency may withhold records after &#034;inadvertent&#034; prior release</title>
		<link>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/</link>
					<comments>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 02:22:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deliberative process privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intra-agency]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://migration-rcfp.alleydev.com/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A New York mid-level appeals court partially <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/20120508_170041_mazzone.pdf">upheld</a> a lower court&#39;s decision to deny a records requester documents requested through the state Freedom of Information Law, despite the fact that the agency previously granted the requester access to parts of the documents.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/">N.Y. appeals court rules agency may withhold records after &quot;inadvertent&quot; prior release</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A New York mid-level appeals court partially <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/20120508_170041_mazzone.pdf">upheld</a> a lower court&#39;s decision to deny a records requester documents requested through the state Freedom of Information Law, despite the fact that the agency previously granted the requester access to parts of the documents. In its ruling last week, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division for the Third Department confirmed that some of the documents in question were exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions in the FOIL for attorney-client privileged communications, as well as inter- and intra-agency e-mails and memoranda that would reveal the agency&#39;s pre-decisional deliberations.</p>
<p>In 2010, Victor Mazzone sought records concerning a construction and bridge replacement project on Route 59 in Clarkstown, N.Y. The state Department of Transportation provided him with some of the documents held in its Albany office &#8212; withholding some under certain exemptions found in the FOIL &#8212; and informed him that its Poughkeepsie office would also be responding to his request regarding the records kept at that office.</p>
<p>Before issuing a decision regarding whether the documents requested could be released, a records officer in the Poughkeepsie office informed Mazzone that some of the records he wanted were available for viewing, while the rest would be available for inspection at a later date. Mazzone examined the records at the office and requested copies of some of them. When the agency denied him some of the copies he requested &#8212; claiming they were exempt from disclosure &#8212; he sued, seeking disclosure of the files he had seen, as well as those withheld by the Albany office.</p>
<p>Mazzone contended in part that the agency had waived its right to withhold the documents he inspected, since they had previously been made available to him. The lower court rejected this argument, and, after inspecting the records withheld, affirmed the agency&rsquo;s decision to withhold their release under exemptions to the FOIL.</p>
<p>The appeals court also affirmed, noting the agency&#39;s claim that the prior &quot;disclosure was inadvertent,&quot; and that Mazzone &quot;was allowed to inspect these documents before it had issued a determination on his FOIL request.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Justice E. Michael Kavanagh tersely ruled that in the case of such inadvertent disclosure, the right to deny disclosure is not waived. Further, he explained, he agreed &quot;for the most part&quot; with the lower court&#39;s decision after reviewing the withheld materials that they were &quot;in fact exempt from disclosure&rdquo; as either privileged communications between the agency and its counsel or e-mails and memoranda that would reveal the agency&#39;s deliberative process. However, the court ordered the release of one memorandum and an e-mail that it found did not fall within the deliberative process exemption.</p>
<p>Attorney Edward Stein, who represented Mazzone, said he was disappointed in the way the state handled the FOIL appeal.</p>
<p>&ldquo;This put heavy burden and costs on someone who simply requested information through FOIL, which is his right,&rdquo; said Stein.</p>
<p>The court also rejected Mazzone&#39;s claim for attorney&#39;s fees, finding that he had not &quot;substantially prevailed&quot; in his suit and that the agency had a &quot;reasonable basis for denying access.&quot; Mazzone also unsuccessfully claimed that the state failed to meet its burden to prove that the documents were exempt from disclosure. He argued that simply submitting the records to the lower court for inspection was insufficient in demonstrating that the sought-after documents could be withheld.</p>
<p>Stein expressed his belief that the state needs to correct the course in which FOIL proceedings are headed.</p>
<p>&ldquo;According to this and similar cases, in New York, an agency simply has to separate and produce documents for in camera inspection, providing a bare explanation as to why they are exempt under FOIL,&quot; said Stein. &quot;FOIL should be patterned on its federal counterpart where a full written explanation is required to withhold any such information.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The state Office of the Attorney General declined to comment.</p>
<p>Stein said his client has not decided whether to further appeal this case.</p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px; font-style:italic;">Related Reporters Committee resources:</p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&middot; New York &#8211; Open Government Guide: <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/new-york-open-government-guide/ii-exemptions-and-other-legal-limitations/exemptions-open-records-s-4" target="_blank">2. Discussion of each exemption.</a></p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/">N.Y. appeals court rules agency may withhold records after &quot;inadvertent&quot; prior release</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-appeals-court-rules-agency-may-withhold-records-after-inadvertent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">44015</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.Y. high court rules certain records about Hudson River contamination can be public</title>
		<link>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/</link>
					<comments>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deliberative process privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intra-agency]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://migration-rcfp.alleydev.com/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The New York Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/20120323_111223_town_of_waterford.pdf">ruled </a>that communications between a federal and state agency about efforts to decontaminate part of the Hudson River did not qualify as intra- or inter-agency records and are not exempt under the state Freedom of Information Law.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/">N.Y. high court rules certain records about Hudson River contamination can be public</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/20120323_111223_town_of_waterford.pdf">ruled </a>that communications between a federal and state agency about efforts to decontaminate part of the Hudson River did not qualify as intra- or inter-agency records and are not exempt under the state Freedom of Information Law.</p>
<p>At issue was whether communications between the Environmental Protection Agency, a federal agency, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) may be withheld from disclosure as &quot;inter-agency or intra-agency&quot; records that would reveal deliberations during the decision-making process, according to the court&#39;s ruling. The purpose of the exemption, as the court explained, is to permit agency employees &quot;to exchange their views freely, as part of the deliberative process, without the concern that those ideas will become public.&quot;</p>
<p>According to the opinion, the EPA and DEC have been working together since 1984 to address the presence of contaminated water in a 200-mile portion of the Hudson River. In 2002, the EPA approved a remediation plan that required General Electric to dredge the river to remove sediment contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and prepare an analysis of alternative water supply options for towns in which the water supply might be affected by the dredging project.</p>
<p>The Town of Waterford filed an open records request with the DEC seeking certain records pertaining to the dredging project and contamination, according to court papers. The DEC released some of the records, but claimed it could withhold others under the deliberative process exemption.</p>
<p>The state high court disagreed, ruling that the communications exchanged between the agencies were neither &quot;intra-agency&quot; nor &quot;inter-agency.&quot;</p>
<p>First, the court noted, the definition of &ldquo;agency&rdquo; under the Freedom of Information Law is limited to state and municipal agencies and does not include those at the federal level.</p>
<p>&ldquo;Since the EPA is not an &#39;agency&#39; for purposes of FOIL, the inter-agency exemption does not apply to materials exchanged between these entities,&rdquo; the court ruled.</p>
<p>Second, the court rejected the argument that because the EPA was basically a consultant for the DEC on the dredging project, the communications were &quot;intra-agency&quot; documents exchanged within a single agency.</p>
<p>The DEC raised the argument that the court had previously considered &#8212; in some situations &#8212; &ldquo;documents prepared by a party that is not an &lsquo;agency&rsquo;&quot; to constitute &quot;intra-agency&quot; materials where the material was prepared by an outside consultant retained by the agency, according to court papers.</p>
<p>However, the court rejected the DEC&rsquo;s argument that the EPA was an outside consultant for the purposes of the exemption because in order to form an &quot;intra-agency&quot; relationship, the outside consultant must not have its own interest in the project. While the EPA and DEC did have a &quot;collaborative relationship&quot; and were working toward the same goal, the EPA was not functioning as the DEC&#39;s agent or employee, and was in fact the lead agency for the project, the court noted.</p>
<p>&quot;Moreover, unlike typical consultants, these agencies represent different constituencies and their interests may diverge,&quot; the court said. Therefore, it ruled that the communications were not &quot;intra-agency&quot; material that could be withheld under the exemption.</p>
<p>The court&#39;s opinion overturned the ruling of a lower court, which had upheld the applicability of the exemption on the basis that the agencies&#39; &quot;long-term collaborative relationship&quot; made the records inter- or intra-agency records.</p>
<p>The Town of Waterford wanted the documents because people have a right to know how the government reaches decisions and makes policies that affect &ldquo;tens of thousands of people,&rdquo; said John Lawler, town supervisor of Waterford.</p>
<p>&ldquo;At the end of the day, government needs to be held accountable to people&quot; and needs to release information that the people have a right to have, Lawler said.</p>
<p>Representatives for the DEC were unable to comment.</p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px; font-style:italic;">Related Reporters Committee resources:</p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&middot; News: <a target='_blank' href='https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/new-york-appeals-court-expands-scope-records-exemption'>New York appeals court expands scope of records exemption</a></p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&middot; News: <a target='_blank' href='https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/court-forces-epa-release-ge-discussion-records'>Court forces EPA to release GE discussion records</a></p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&middot; New York &#8211; Open Government Guide: <a target='_blank' href='https://www.rcfp.org/new-york-open-government-guide/ii-exemptions-and-other-legal-limitations/exemptions-open-records-s-4'>2. Discussion of each exemption.</a></p>
<p style="font-size:12px; line-height:140%; padding:0px;">&nbsp;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/">N.Y. high court rules certain records about Hudson River contamination can be public</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rcfp.org/ny-high-court-rules-certain-records-about-hudson-river-contamination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">43967</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York appeals court expands scope of records exemption</title>
		<link>https://www.rcfp.org/new-york-appeals-court-expands-scope-records-exemption/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deliberative process privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter-agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intra-agency]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://migration-rcfp.alleydev.com/new-york-appeals-court-expands-scope-of-records-exemption/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p> A New York appellate court in Albany on Thursday <a href="http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/decisions/2010/506811.pdf">ruled</a> that the &#34;deliberative process&#34; exemption to the state&#39;s freedom of information law (&#34;FOIL&#34;) applies to communications between federal and state officials. At issue in the case were records sought by a Saratoga County water district relating to a water supply option report developed by General Electric Co. as part of its efforts to remediate contaminated portions of the Hudson river.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/new-york-appeals-court-expands-scope-records-exemption/">New York appeals court expands scope of records exemption</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> A New York appellate court in Albany on Thursday <a href="http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/decisions/2010/506811.pdf">ruled</a> that the &quot;deliberative process&quot; exemption to the state&#39;s freedom of information law (&quot;FOIL&quot;) applies to communications between federal and state officials. At issue in the case were records sought by a Saratoga County water district relating to a water supply option report developed by General Electric Co. as part of its efforts to remediate contaminated portions of the Hudson river. New York state officials, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, had co-regulatory authority over the cleanup project.</p>
<p> Water district officials expressed concern that plans to dredge upriver portions of the Hudson river to remove hazardous PCB sediments could negatively affect the local water supply. They therefore requested the disclosure of a variety of documents under FOIL related to the proposed remediation plan, including some communications between EPA and state officials.</p>
<p> The state refused to disclose certain records, claiming that they constituted intra-agency or inter-agency pre-decisional deliberative materials that were exempt from disclosure under the law. FOIL provides for such an exemption on the grounds that pre-decisional communications exchanged internally purely for discussion purposes should be protected in order to promote frank and open discussion.</p>
<p> The water district argued that the inter-agency and intra-agency confidentiality protections only covered an &quot;agency&quot; as that term was defined under FOIL. FOIL limits the definition of an &quot;agency&quot; to state and municipality entities thus arguably not covering communications with federal bodies such as EPA. The lower court agreed with the water district&#39;s reading of the law.</p>
<p> The appeals court, however, disagreed. It first recognized that neither &quot;inter-agency&quot; nor &quot;intra-agency&quot; were defined under FOIL and that prior case law has interpreted these terms to include certain non-state entities despite how the term &quot;agency&quot; is defined under the same law. The court went on to rule that the proper test to uphold the intent of the deliberative process exemption &quot;can only be served by focussing on the nature of the relationship that exists between the entities, and asking whether the communication in question is exchanged as part of the deliberative process in government decision-making.&quot;</p>
<p> Applying that test, the court noted that the relationship between federal EPA and state officials &quot;has existed for more than 25 years&quot; and was in place due to statutory and contractual obligations that required cooperation. &quot;In terms of this project, [New York state] and the EPA share a common objective, and by law as well as by contract are required to work as one unit to achieve that objective,&quot; the court stated.</p>
<p> The court then ordered the lower court to conduct a review of the documents at issue to determine which, if any, of the withheld documents constituted deliberative process communications. In addressing a separate claim, the court also ruled that certain settlement negotiation documents were improperly withheld, finding that the state failed to provide any specific legal basis supporting non-disclosure.</p>
<p> In dissent, one member of the court noted that the majority&#39;s decision &quot;thwarts the basic premises that FOIL is to be construed liberally, that government records are presumptively available for public inspection, and that exemptions are to be construed narrowly.&quot; The dissent goes on to highlight the limited definition of an &quot;agency&quot; under FOIL and notes that the state Committee on Open Government (a persuasive but non-binding authority) has previously &mdash; and correctly &mdash; found that communications between the state and EPA are not covered under the deliberative process exemption.</p>
<p> The dissent also distinguishes prior case law holding that certain non-state, non-municipality entities can qualify for deliberative process protection by stating that such inclusion had previously only applied when the non-state actor was in a consulting position. Here, the dissent found the EPA to be acting with independent authority.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/new-york-appeals-court-expands-scope-records-exemption/">New York appeals court expands scope of records exemption</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.rcfp.org">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">42577</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>