>> IT'S A NEW DAY IN ALBANY, IF YOU BELIEVE THE HYPE FROM GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL, WHO-- LIKE NEW GOVERNORS BEFORE HER-- HAS PROMISED THE MOST TRASNPARENT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF NEW YORK.

BUT WHAT HAS THAT MEANT IN REALITY, DURING HER FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE?

AND HAS THIS SENTIMENT TRICKLED DOWN THROUGHOUT THE STATE?

ALL THAT - AND MUCH MORE - COMING UP NEXT, ON CONNECT: NEW YORK.

♪ ♪ >> WELCOME TO CONNECT-NEW YORK, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO - HOST OF WCNY'S THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM, A DAILY PUBLIC RADIO SHOW BROADCASTING FROM THE STATE CAPITOL.

TODAY'S PROGRAM REVOLVES AROUND GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY - BOTH IN PRACTICE, AND WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM OUR CIVIC LEADERS.

LATER IN THE SHOW WE'LL BE JOINED BY A PANEL OF OPEN GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES AND LEARN ABOUT THE SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DISCLOSURE OF PERSONNEL RECORDS, BUT FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO PLAY A CONVERSATION WE RECENTLY RECORDED WITH SHOSHANNA BEWLAY, WHO WAS TAPPED IN 2020 TO SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NEW YORK'S COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT - A QUASI-INDEPENDENT AGENCY THAT OFFERS ADVICE ON HOW TO ADMINISTER TRANSPARENCY LAWS.

HERE'S OUR INTERVIEW FROM ALBANY.

WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME.

IT'S A PLEASURE.

>> SO REPORTERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC TRADITIONALLY UTILIZE THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT TO FIND ADVICE AND SUPPORT, TO HELP THEM NAVIGATE THE STATE'S OPEN MEETINGS LAWS AND THE STATE'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW BUT ULTIMATELY THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT GETS RELEASED IS THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AS WELL AS THE JUDICIARY BRANCH DO YOU THINK THAT DYNAMIC SHOULD BE SHIFTED IN SOME WAY?

SHOULD THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT HAVE MORE OF A SAY IN WHAT ACTUALLY GETS RELEASED OPPOSED TO MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT TYPE OF ACCESS PEEL SHOULD HAVE TO INFORMATION AND MEETINGS?

>> THAT'S A MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.

YOU KNOW, EACH YEAR WE TRACK LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE THE ROLE ON THE COMMITTEE OF OPEN GOVERNMENT AND MAKE IT LESS OF AN ADVISORY ROLE AND MORE OF AN INVESTIGATORY OR FACT FINDING TYPE OF ROLE AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY OF LEGISLATION, BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE IS THE IDEA THAT IF SOMEHOW THE COMMITTEE, AS A BODY, WERE GIVEN SOME MIDDLE LEVEL, PRIOR TO TAKING AN APPEAL OF WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE MIGHT SAY TO A COURT BY WAY OF ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, THAT THE COMMITTEE MIGHT CENTRALLY DETERMINE APPEALS.

FOR ANYONE WHO WAS DENIED A RECORD BY AN AGENCY STATE OR LOCAL.

ANY FOIL RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES.

BEARING IN MIND THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 10,000 PLUS APPEALS A YEAR THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.

THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE WHICH WE ARE NOT AWARE AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WHERE THE NUMBERS COULD BE DOUBLED IT'S LIKELY WE ARE AWARE OF THE MAJORITY OF APPEALS BECAUSE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET COPIES OF THEM AND WE DO REVIEW EACH AND EVERY ONE FOR GROSS ERRORS WE SEE AND WE MIGHT RESPOND IN THAT WAY.

BUT THERE IS A LARGE POOL OF APPEALS AND IF THE COMMITTEE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING SOME LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OR DETERMINATIONS OPPOSED TO OPINIONS, WE WOULD CERTAINLY NEED A LARGER STAFF AND CENTRALIZING IN ONE AGENCY THE OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION HAD SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING ABOUT THAT IDEA AND CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY AMONG WITH DETERMINATIONS THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET BECAUSE AS YOU ALOUDED-- ALLUDED TO, GENERALLY EACH AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN DETERMINATION AND THEN THOSE DETERMINATIONS HAVE TO BE APPEALED TO A VARIETY OF JUDGES ACROSS THE STATE IF LITIGATION ENSUES.

CERTAINLY IN THE ANNUAL REPORT HISTORICALLY, THE COMMITTEE HAS NOTED THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD, IDEALIZING THE IDEA OF HAVING THE COMMITTEE BE A DETERMINING AGENCY OPPOSED TO AN ADVISING AGENCY.

IT REALLY HASN'T TAKEN A POSITION ON WHETHER IT SHOULD BE.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A POSITION?

IF THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR SAID WHATEVER YOU NEED IN TERMS OF STAFF, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE, WE'LL GET YOU THE EXPERTS IN THE SUBJECT MATTERS THAT MIGHT BE COVERED BY FOIL AND DIFFERENT AREAS AND WE WANT YOU TO TAKE THIS ON WOULD YOU THINK THAT IS A BETTER WAY OF ADMINISTERING DECISIONS ABOUT RECORDS REQUESTS?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THE TEMPTATION IS THERE TO SAY WELL, ONE BODY, CONSISTENT DETERMINATION THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT BOON, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOTHETICALS PACKED INTO THERE AND SO MANY THINGS I KNOW ARE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR AND STATE TO ACHIEVE WITH RESPECT TO , YOU KNOW, BUDGETTARILY TRYING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN AND SEEING WHAT AGENCIES, WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THROUGH CENTRALIZED DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, THE PITFALLS SOME OF THEM HAVE SUNK INTO OVER THE YEARS AND, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A DECISION THAT IS BIGGER THAN MYSELF, FOR SURE I THINK IF I ASKED THE COMMITTEE TO VOTE AS A BODY WHETHER IT IS IN FAVOR OF TAKING THIS ON, GIVEN ITS PACKAGE OF REQUESTS THAT WERE RESOURCE RELATED THAT WERE MET I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A VERY CLOSE VOTE SO IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO STEP IN BECAUSE I DON'T GET A VOTE.

THAT'S ONE THING THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE SAID EARLIER, IS THAT AS THE DIRECTOR, I JUST AM THERE TO ADVISE AND SUPPORT AND ASSIST, DISCHARGING THE SECRETARY OF STATE ROLE BUT I DON'T GET TO VOTE ON ANY OF THESE MATTERS.

>> ALTHOUGH IN THE PAST, YOUR PREDECESSOR REALLY DROVE THE BUS WHEN IT CAME TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND I THINK HE WAS THE DE FACTO LEADER OF THAT COMMITTEE, EVEN IF HE WASN'T THE LEADER IN STATUTE.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M CERTAINLY NOTHING LIKE MY PREDECESSOR.

I THINK THAT EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE THE GOOD AND THE BAD, MY VIEW OF THE ROLE AND MY OFFICE AND MY STAFF.

IT'S A SUGGESTIVE ROLE.

I'M THERE TO FACILITY FACILITATE ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE AND ITS MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED IN AND LEGAL ADVICE THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE.

I WAS THE LAWYER FOR THE COMMITTEE, SO I INTERPRET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND I AM EMPOWERED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

BUT AGAIN, TO BE ADVISORY, I'M ADVISORY TO THE ADVISORY BODY SO IN THAT WAY I MUST BE OBJECTIVE, I MUST BE TRUE TO AND ACCURATE TO MY OATH AS AN ATTORNEY AS WELL.

MY JOB IS NOT TO GO OUT ON LIMBS.

MY JOB IS TO SAY HERE WHAT IS A COURT WOULD SAY.

HERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN THE ABSENCE OF WHAT A COURT WOULD SAY, WHAT THE COURT WOULD LIKELY SAY THAT IS SIMILAR OR ANALOGOUS.

SO I DON'T MY PERSONAL VIEW WHAT I WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN, ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, LONG STANDING IN MY HEART BELIEF IS NOT RELEVANT IF I CAN'T FIND SUPPORT FOR IT OUTSIDE MYSELF.

>> DURING THE RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, STATE LAWMAKERS AND GOVERNOR HOCHUL APPROVED CHANGES TO THE STATE'S OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHICH, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION ZOOM TO BE A REFLECTION HOW TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN USED TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC HAS REMOTE ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS LAW MOVING FORWARD AND GETTING PHASED IN, DO YOU THINK IT WILL BE A NET POSITIVE FOR TRANSPARENCY IN NEW YORK?

>> I THINK ANECDOTALLY WAS WE HAVE HEARD AND AGAIN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IN AN ORDINARY YEAR WE ARE MUCH MORE INVOLVED WITH FOIL THAN THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.

IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT, THERE HAS BEEN TONS MORE INTEREST IN THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, I THINK BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THIS COULDN'T GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ANYMORE BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY REMOTE AND THEY HAD TO TUNE IN SO A LOT MORE ATTENTION HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON IT.

PEOPLE WERE BORED AND WANTED SMINGS THINGS TO DO AND STUCK IN THEIR HOUSES.

>> SHOWS HOW BORED PEOPLE WERE IF THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING.

>> ANECDOTALLY WAS WE HEARD AS A COMMITTEE AND AGAIN I PROVIDED THIS DATA TO THE LEGISLATURE, BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, THEY HELD A HEARING ON REMOTE MEETINGS SO I PROVIDED MANY PAGES OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT COMPRISED SO MUCH DATA WE HAD BEEN TRACKING.

WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY ATTENDING MEETINGS THAN BEFORE.

MANY PEOPLE FIND IT EASIER TO ATTEND MEETINGS REMOTELY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE WHEREVER THEY'RE BEING HELD AND TAKE THE TIME TO PARK AND GO IN AND, YOU KNOW, FIND A SEAT AND WAIT FOR THE MEETING TO BEGIN AND THEN LISTEN TO THE MEETING THEN LEAVE AND DRIVE HOME THESE PEOPLE FIND IT MORE EFFICIENT TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS REMOTELY THE COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN NOTICE OF THOSE DATA AND HAS SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW IN THE ANNUAL REPORT, THAT REMOTE MEETINGS, WE BELIEVE, INCREASE ACCESS.

AND ACCORDINGLY, TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE THE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACCESSING, THE BETTER FOR JUST YOUR TRANSPARENCY METRIC.

BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHALLENGED BY REMOTE MEETINGS AND THERE ARE PARTS OF THIS STATE THAT HAVE LITTLE TO NO BROADBAND ACCESS, WHO HAVE VERY LARGE DIFFICULTIES AND BARRIERS TO ATTENDING SOME OF THESE SESSIONS WHEN THEY'RE HELD ONLY REMOTELY.

SO WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL THAT, YOU KNOW AND THEN THERE IS THEG QUESTION AND SOME AREAS OF THE STATE WHERE REMOTE ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGING AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IF WE SOMEHOW GO TO MORE REMOTE PLATFORMS THAT WE ARE SORT OF EXCLUDING THOSE MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION AND I THINK THE MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE LAW THAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED, WHICH WE'LL CALL CHAPTER 56 OF THE LAWS OF 2022, JUST TO KEEP IT IDENTIFIED.

CHAPTER 56 IS A COMPROMISE THAT CAME OUT IN THE BUDGET LEGISLATION AND IT ALLOWS FOR CONTINUED REMOTE MEETINGS AFTER THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IS OVER.

WHEN YOU SAID THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR AMENDED THE LAW TO RECOGNIZE REMOTE MEETINGS, IT HAS BEEN THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT THAT IS MEANT TO BE MORE PERMANENT RATHER THAN THE TEMPORARY MONTHLY EXTENSION.

IT'S VERY LIMITED IN ITS SCOPE AND WE WON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK UNTIL THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IS OVER AND BODIES ARE ESSENTIALLY IMPLEMENTING CHAPTER 56 AND USING IT.

IT'S COMPLEX AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS MEANT BY THE LEGISLATURE TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS.

AND IN FACT REQUIRES IN-PERSON MEETINGS OR REQUIRES A QUORUM OF PUBLIC BODIES TO BE IN PERSON, BUT IT ALLOWS A MEN OF A PUBLIC BODY TO MEET FROM A PRIVATE LOCATION UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES SO LONG AS A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF THAT SAME PUBLIC BODY ARE MEETING IN PUBLIC WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN JOIN THEM.

>> WE HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH SHOSHONA BEWLEY.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE TIME.

GREAT CONVERSATION.

>> AND FOR AN EXTENDED VERSION OF OUR CONVERSATION WITH SHOSHANA BEWLAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE'S COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WCNY.ORG.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM OUR PANEL OF TRANSPARENCY ADVOCATES AND EXPERTS, AND JOINING ME IN THE STUDIO IS MICHELLE ALLEN, FROM THE NEW YORK COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, AND ROY GUTTERMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE TULLY CENTER FOR FREE SPEECH AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S NEWHOUSE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

AND PIPING IN REMOTELY IS FRIEND OF THE SHOW RACHAEL FAUSS, SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST FOR REINVENT ALBANY.

AND WE'RE GOING TO START OUR CONVERSATION WITH RACHAEL, OUR EXPERT ON WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE CAPITOL.

CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S INITIATIVE FROM LAST FALL - TO HAVE STATE AGENCIES WRITE NEW TRANSPARENCY PLANS?

WHAT WAS SHE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH AND WHAT WAS IT THAT WE GOT FROM THE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS?

>> SO GOVERNOR HOCHUL IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER HAD AN IDEA TO HELP WITH HERRED IN TO IDEA TO HAVE A MORE TRANSPARENT AND OPEN GOVERNMENT BY SAYING ALL STATE AGENCIES THAT I CONTROL, ALL THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, I'M GOING TO HAVE THEM COME UP WITH A PLAN ABOUT HOW THEY INTEND TO IMPLEMENT THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, OPEN DATA, ALL THE INITIATIVES THAT RELATE TO PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

SO SHE ASKED THEM TO COME UP WITH A PLAN AND PROVIDE IT TO HER.

THEY ALL DID SO BY AROUND NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND SHE POSTED THEM ON HER WEBSITE.

THERE WAS A WIDE RANGE OF HOW AGENCIES RESPONDED.

SHE DIDN'T MANDATE WHAT THEY HAD TO COVER BUT SHE SAID THESE ARE THE TYPES OF ISSUES I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS IN YOUR PLAN.

WE HAD SOME AGENCIES DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB, YOU KNOW, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HAD A VERY GOOD REPORT THAT KICKED OFF ALL THE POINTS THE GOVERNOR PUT IN HER INITIAL DIRECTIVE AND SOME OTHER AGENCIES HAD A SINGLE PAGE REPORT LIKE THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS.

SO IN SOME WAYS, THE REPORTS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE AGENCIES DID THEM AND SOME DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB AND SOME DID A LESS THOROUGH JOB, BUT I THINK THE BENEFICIAL PART OF IT IS IT PROVIDED A BASELINE SO AT LEAST WE KNOW FOR EACH AGENCY, THEY HAD TO PUBLICLY SAY HERE'S WHAT WE INTEND TO DO TO MAKE OUR AGENCY MORE TRANSPARENT.

SO I THINK IT WAS A NET POSITIVE BUT CERTAINLY SOME AGENCIES COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB THAN THEY DID.

>> THINKING ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION, MICHELLE, IN MY DAY JOB AS HOST OF THE CAPITOL PRESS ROOM, I REACHED OUT TO SOME OF THE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS AND SPOT CHECK ON HOW THEY'RE DOING IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE AND THEY DEFINITELY HAMMERED OUT THE LOW HANGING FRUIT BUT SOME OF IT WAS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS NINE MONTHS LATER.

IS THAT A REASONABLE SET OF RESPONSE FROM AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS?

HOW SHOULD THEY TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY OF BECOMING MORE TRANSPARENT WHEN IT COMES TO SHARING AND MAKING PUBLIC INFORMATION MORE ACCESSIBLE?

>> IT'S A GOOD START.

GOVERNOR HOCHUL CREATING THESE TRANSPARENCY PLANS IS A GREAT START AND WE APPLAUD THAT BUT WE NEED TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES FEDERAL AGENCIES TO NOT ONLY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE BUT ISSUE AN ANNUAL REPORT.

IN THOSE REPORTS, IN THE REPORTS AS FAR AS THE FOIL REPORTS ELF, IT WILL INCLUDE HOW MANY FOIL REQUESTS THEY GOT HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR THEM TO RESPOND TO THE FOIL REQUESTS.

WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR DENYING DISCLOSURE.

IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE BUT WE NEED TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE PLAN SO, IN OUR OPINION, IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WHAT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT FROM OUR STATE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CAPACITY?

SHOULD THEY HAVE MULTIPLE PERSONNEL THINKING ABOUT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES?

SHOULD THIS BE AN AFTER THOUGHT WHERE THIS SHOULD BE IN TERMS OF CALCULOUS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS?

>> PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW PUBLIC INFORMATION.

THESE AGENCIES ARE IN CONTROL OF TONS OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

AND IF WE LEARNED ONE THING FROM THE PANDEMIC, IT IS THE NEED TO GET INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS IN A QUICK TIMELY MANNER AND THE REAL TEST FOR THIS AMBITIOUS PLAN, AND THIS IS AN AMBITIOUS PLAN, WILL BE THE DAY-TO-DAY RETURN OF INFORMATION PARTICULARLY WITH FOIL REQUESTS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.

>> RACHEL, THIS WAS DONE AT THE BEHEST OF THE GOVERNOR, BUT IF WE HAD A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP IN ALBANY, WE COULD HAVE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS APPROACHING THIS FROM A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IN THE FUTURE.

SO THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENSHRINED IN STATE LAW, AND IF IT WAS WRITTEN INTO STATUTE, ARE THERE OTHER TWEAKS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PUT ON STATE AGENCIES?

>> SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE WAYS TO FORMALIZE THIS.

THE GOVERNOR COULD DO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING THIS FOR HER EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

NOT ALL OF THEM WOULD BE COVERED BECAUSE SHE CAN ONLY CONTROL THE ONES THAT SHE APPOINTED OR HAS A ROLE IN APPOINTING.

SO THERE MIGHT BE A FEW THAT FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS SO THAT'S WHY YOU MIGHT WANT LEGISLATION BUT I THINK AS WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, THE REPORTING ON DATA ABOUT FOIL, THAT IS-- IT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY, I THINK, FROM THE TRANSPARENCY PLANS, TO HAVE AGENCIES REPORT TO SOMEONE, COULD BE THE GOVERNOR, COULD BE THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, ABOUT WE DON'T HAVE DATA ON FOIL AND THAT'S A REAL BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO-- WE HAVE ANECDOTAL INFORMATION AND I THINK ANYONE WHO FILES A FOIL REQUEST IS FRUSTRATED BY THEM CONSTANTLY, MYSELF INCLUDED.

BUT IF WE HAD BIGGER WHOLESALE INFORMATION, DATA WE COULD ANALYZE, LOOK AT TRENDS, YOU KNOW, THEN WE COULD MAKE MORE PROGRESS ON THE ISSUE BECAUSE WE WOULD ALSO KNOW THERE IS A RESOURCE PROBLEM AT AGENCIES.

THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO DO FOIL.

BUT IF WE KNOW WHAT THE FOIL CASE LOAD IS, WE CAN ALSO DO A BETTER JOB OF FUNDING FOIL REQUESTS BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE A PUBLIC SERVICE AND SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY.

>> WELL, RACHEL, WHAT ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL WAY THAT THE SECOND FLOOR, REFERRING TO THE EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, IS SORT OF TAKING THEIR HANDS OFF OF FOIL REQUESTS OR AT LEAST THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE COMPARED TO HOW THE CUOMO ADMINISTRATION SORT OF CONSIDERED FOIL REQUESTS THAT WENT TO EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT TRANSITION AT ALL?

>> YEAH, IN THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE CHAMBER TRANSPARENCY PLAN, THEY CITE THAT THEY WILL NO LONGER ASK AGENCIES, YOU KNOW, TO RUN IT UP THE FLAG POLE, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO HAVE A HAND IN DECIDING WHETHER FOIL REQUESTS GO THROUGH.

ALSO, YOU KNOW, SOME AGENCIES ACTUALLY NOTED IT IN THEIR OWN PLANS, THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THE M.T.A.

SAID IN THEIR PLAN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE NO, SIR LONGER GOING TO ASK FOR FOIL REQUESTS.

OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A GOOD THING.

YOU DON'T WANT PLITDIZATION OF FOIL.

AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IS ASKING TO SEE ALL THE FOILS GOING THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES, THAT MAKES A POLITICIZED PROCESS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF DATA HELD BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE THAT IS IMPORTANT, THE GOVERNOR'S SCHEDULE, THEY WANT TO KNOW EMAILS BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR AND HER BIG DONORS, FOR EXAMPLE, SO THERE IS A LOT OF FOIL INFORMATION AND FOIL REQUESTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE THAT THEY HAVE THAT THE PUBLIC WANT.

>> RACHEL USED POLITICALIZATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND IN REPORTING, THERE IS THIS BALANCE BETWEEN INFORMATION THAT WE AS THE MEDIA WANT TO HAVE AND WE, AS THE MEDIA, ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO BE GIVEN IF WE ASK ABOUT IT.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE FORMER, THE INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE GETTING OUT BUT MAYBE THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A LEGAL OBLIGATION THROUGH THE STATE'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW OR OPEN MEETINGS LAW TO ACTUALLY HAVE IT OUT THERE, HOW DO YOU THINK SPOKESPEOPLE FOR EITHER THE EXECUTIVE CHAMBER OR STATE AGENCIES OR EVEN FURTHER DOWN THE LINE, TO MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD APPROACH THEIR JOB.

SHOULD THEY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THEY'RE GETTING OUT THERE OR SHOULD THEIR FIRST AND FOREMOST RESPONSIBILITY BE TO CONSIDER WHAT THEY ARE ASKED BY THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC AND WHETHER THEY'RE ASKED TO HAND IT OUT AND IT'S NOT A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY TO GIVE IT OUT?

>> PUBLIC INFORMATION IS PRESUMED TO BE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY THE LAW IN NEW YORK STATE TALKS ABOUT THAT.

THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNLESS THE INFORMATION FITS INTO ONE OF ENUMERATED STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS.

THAT BEING SAID, INFORMATION IS INFORMATION.

THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO LEARN ABOUT.

ANDY MOST COMMON WAY THE PUBLIC LEARNS ABOUT THIS IS FROM REPORTERS.

REPORTERS FILING FOIL REQUESTS AND ANALYZING THE DATA.

I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK POLITICS SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN DATA DISTRIBUTION.

I MEAN IT IS THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS.

>> PREACH IT, ROY.

>> I'M TRYING.

BUT YOU KNOW, POLITICS ARE POLITICS AND THIS HIGHLY POLITICALIZED WE ARE LIVING IN, IT IS DIFFICULT.

THE INFORMATION IS STILL THE INFORMATION AND DATA IS STILL DATA AND I DON'T THINK POLITICS SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN THAT.

>> MICHELLE, I THINK ANYONE WATCHING WHO HAS NEVER ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST IN NEW YORK MIGHT BE SURPRISED TO KNOW IF YOU WERE TO ASK RECORDS FROM THE STATE AGENCY, IT IS UP TO THE STATE AGENCY HOW THEY WANT TO APPLY AND YOU CAN APPEAL THAT AND THE APPEAL OFFICER IS PART OF THE AGENCY AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, WE CAN TURN TO THEM FOR AN OPINION THAT MIGHT SAY, WE REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD RELEASE THIS RECORD, BUT THAT OPINION CAN JUST BE DUMPED IN THE TRASH BAG AT THE END OF THE DAY.

I ASKED SHOSHANA THE ROLE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT WRITING INTO STATUTE A NEW MORE POWERFUL ROLE FOR THEM POTENTIALLY MAKING THEM THE FINAL ARBITER ON WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW IN NEW YORK?

>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT NEW YORK STATE LAW SHOULD FALL IN LINE AND ALIGN WITH NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES AND MANY OTHER STATES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE FINES, OR IN SOME OTHER STATES, THEY'RE SEPARATE ELECTED, INDEPENDENT PEOPLE OR ENTITIES THAT HAVE MEDIATION OR QUASI JUDICIAL POSITIONS WHERE THEY CAN FACILITATE MEDIATION.

THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE AN AVENUE FOR CITIZENS TO GET ADVICE AND HAVE REPERCUSSIONS TO HOLD OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.

AND CURRENTLY THE ONLY RECOURSE FOR INDIVIDUALS IS TO FILE AN ARTICLE 78.

>> YOU MENTIONED BEFORE WE WERE TAPING ABOUT YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE ON INDIANA.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE SETUP THEY HAD AND WHAT THEY HAD AFTER YOU GOT INVOLVED?

>> THERE IS A GENTLEMAN OR AN ENTITY IN INDIANA, THE INDIANA PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR.

AND WHAT THEIR ROLE IS, ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS LOOKING FOR ANY TYPE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO FOIL OR OPEN MEETINGS LAW, THAT THEY CONTACT THIS ENTITY AND ARE REQUIRED TO GET AN ADVISORY OPINION PRIOR TO BRINGING IN ACTION TO COURT.

BUT WITH THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY OWN SITUATION, I GOT A FAVORABLE ADVISORY OPINION, TOOK IT TO COURT AND THE JUDGE FLAT OUT SAID WELL THAT'S JUST AN OPINION AND WE DON'T HAVE TO ENFORCE IT SO SINCE THEN, I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE INDIANA PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR PRIOR TO MOVING BACK TO NEW YORK STATE TO GET MORE ENFORCEMENT POWERS.

THE INDIANA PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR WAS RECENTLY HIGHLIGHTED AT THE NATIONAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COALITION AS A UNIQUE QUASI JUDICIAL POSITION THAT SHOULD BE A GOOD MODEL TO, AGAIN, THAT ALL THE STATES CAN USE AS A MODEL.

AND HE IS VERY SUCCESSFUL AT MEDIATING THINGS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO COURT.

AND HIS MAIN THING IS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS.

>> RECIDIVISM-- RACHEL, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, LACK OF ENFORCEMENT POWERS OR WHO ACTUALLY APPOINTS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR WHO APPOINTS THE BOARD MEMBERS, ARE THERE CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVING FORWARD THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE A NET POSITIVE FOR TRANSPARENCY IN NEW YORK?

>> WELL, I THINK ON THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPEN SEATS SO ONE VERY SIMPLE STEP WOULD BE TO FILL THOSE OPEN SEATS BECAUSE EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT LAW, THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A BALANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SOME FROM THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC.

IT'S NOT ALL SUPPOSED TO BE GOVERNMENT FOIL OFFICERS WHO ARE ON THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, SO IF WE HAD THE BALANCE A LITTLE MORE TOWARDS THE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES, THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE FIRST STEP.

BUT I THINK THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY THERE ARE OTHER MODELS THAT NEW YORK COULD LOOK AT.

I JUST THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN THAT WE KNOW THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE TO PASS THIS LAW.

AND WE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO IT.

SO ANY FIRST STEP IN GETTING A COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MAKING SURE THE GOVERNOR HERSELF WOULD SIGN THIS BILL AND WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, SEEK TOO MANY CHANGES TO KEEP CONTROL.

BUT EVEN BEYOND THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW ITSELF COULD BE FIXED.

THERE IS NOT THE SAME KIND OF TIMELINES AND DEADLINES THAT OTHER STATES HAVE, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY WITHIN 20 DAYS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO GET YOUR RECORDS BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHEN YOU DO THIS IN NEW YORK, AGENCIES CAN FILE ENDLESS EXTENSIONS.

SO THE LAW ITSELF REALLY COULD BE TIGHTENED UP AND NOT-- EVEN BEYOND FIXING THE COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT.

>> SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK FROM OUR DISCUSSION AND WE ARE GOING TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND IT'S DISCLOSURE OR LACK THEREOF OF PERSONNEL RECORDS IN THE WAKE OF A 2020 STATE LAW DESIGNED TO MAKE THESE FILES ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

OUR PRODUCER, SUSAN BITTER, HAS THE STORY.

>> NEW YORK STATE'S CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50A WAS, FOR DECADES, A LAW THAT MANDATED THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF QUOTE UNQUOTE PERSONNEL RECORDS OF POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES.

WE COULD ARGUE FOR A VERY LONG TIME ABOUT WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THIS LAW WAS.

WE WOULD SAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED VERY NARROWLY.

OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES THIS LAW WAS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO ESSENTIALLY LOCK IN A VAULT ANY RECORD THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED TO EVALUATE AN OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE; MEANING ANY DISCIPLINE RECORDS, ANYTHING THAT YOU KNOW, GOT DROPPED IN A PERSONNEL FILE WAS, DEFAULT, SECRET: OBVIOUSLY THIS CAUSED A NUMBER OF HORRIBLE PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND IT MEANT FOR DECADES NEW YORKERS HAD NO IDEA WAS WAS GOING ON IN THE INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES OF THEIR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

BUT IN THE WAKE OF THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2020, THAT WAS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE TOOK UP THE REPEAL OF 50A AND OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO FULLY REPEAL IT AND, IN EFFECT, REMOVE WHAT HAD BEEN THIS FULL BARRIER TOWARD THE PUBLIC ACCESS TOWARDS POLICE DISCIPLINE RECORDS.

THE NY ACLU IN THE WAKE OF THE REPEAL OF 50A FILED FOIL REQUEST, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS WITH OVER A DOZEN POLICE DEPARTMENT AS ROUND THE STATE TO TRY TO GET AT DECADES OF RECORDS THAT HAD BEEN SECRET FOR SO LONG.

SYRACUSE WAS ONE OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS.

AND BECAUSE OF THE RESPONSE THEY GAVE US, WHICH WAS TO SAY NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANY RECORDS EXCEPT FOR THE ONES WHERE WE OURSELVES AS THE SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE IMPOSED DISCIPLINE ON A POLICE OFFICER, WHICH IS A MINISCULE AMOUNT OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT OCCUR.

WE BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM: THE CRUX OF WHAT THE S.P.D.

IS SAYING IS OKAY, 50A IS GONE.

WOE NO LONGER HAVE THE HOLD BAR ON THE RELEASE OF PERSONNEL RECORDS BUT THERE IS A LONG STANDING VERY GENERALLY WRITTEN PROVISION OF FOIL THAT CREATES A UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY EXEMPTION.

THEY CAN'T TURN OVER ANY VERSION OF REDACTED RECORDS OR TURN OVER RECORDS THAT WOULD SHOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST SYRACUSE.

EVEN RELEASING THAT, THEY'RE SAYING IS AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY.

THIS GOES AGAINST DECADES OF COURT OPINIONS SAYING THIS IS AN EXEMPTION THAT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED VERY NARROWLY AND IT IS ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE PUT INTO FOIL IN 2020 SAYING LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF DISPOSITION, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING ANY INITIATED COMPLAINT, ANY INVESTIGATION, ET CETERA, IS THE TYPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCIPLINARY RECORD THAT NEEDS TO BE TURNED OVER ACCORDING TO FOIL.

I WILL QUIBBLE WITH THE IDEA THAT THESE ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED BECAUSE IT MAKES IT SOUND AS THOUGH FOLKS HAVE BEEN EXONERATED.

SYRACUSE IS LABELING EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT WHERE IT HAS NOT IMPOSED DISCIPLINE AS AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

IN TERMS OF WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO SEE UNSUBSTANTIATED RECORDS, THIS IS THE CORE OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS TRYING TO DO WHEN IT REPEALED 50A WHICH WAS TO MAKE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESSES WORKED SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER REAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS HAPPENING.

TRANSPARENCY AS THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZED WHEN IT WAS REPEALING 50A IS ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP IN THROWING OPEN THE VAULT THAT HAD MAINTAINED THE SECRECY OF THESE RECORDS AND SAYING OKAY, LET'S SHINE SOME LIGHT IN SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD.

THERE WERE A MILLION REASONS WHY POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IS A VITAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

THERE HAS BEEN MANY, YOU KNOW, REALLY HEART BREAKING AND HORRIBLE EXAMPLES OF POLICE MISCONDUCT AND VIOLENCE IN NEW YORK STATE IN SYRACUSE ITSELF, RIGHT?

KNOWING WHETHER, WHEN AND HOW INVESTIGATIONS ARE ABANDONED OR OVERTURNED OR YOU KNOW, RESULT IN A FINDING OF WE WILL NOT DISMISS THIS OFFICER, IT IS GETTING A FULL PICTURE OF HOW THE POLICE ARE POLICING THEMSELVES.

>> AND UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE OFFERING THE SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RECORD AN ON CAMERA INTERVIEW OR RESPOND IN WRITING TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY CONNECT NEW YORK, WE NEVER GOT AN ANSWER AS OF THE TIME OF THIS TAPING.

SO ROY, I KNOW THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING JUST FROM THE SYRACUSE PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS MORE BROADLY, BECAUSE LIKE WE SAW WITH THE NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, THIS HAS BEEN FACED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS ALL OVER THE STATE.

HOW DO YOU THINK DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE RESPONDING IN THE WAKE OF THE REPEAL OF SECTION 50A OF THE STATE'S CIVIL RIGHTS LAW FOR THE REAL NERDS IN THE ROOM?

>> I THINK POLICE DEPARTMENTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AND LET THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY DO AND ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATIONS.

THAT BEING SAID, THE OVERZEALOUS APPLICATION OF THE UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY EXCEPTION SEEMS TO BE CATCHING ON.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CASES AND WERE PROBABLY ABOUT A DOZEN CASES CURRENTLY IN THE SYSTEM WITH THE SYRACUSE CASE CURRENTLY ON APPEAL BEFORE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BUT THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE RETURN TO THE UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY EXCEPTION, WHICH THE COMMITTEE FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT ALSO ENDORSED OBVIOUSLY INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITH CERTAIN DATA, RIGHT?

I DON'T THINK ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SUPPORT BEING ABLE TO FOIL AN OFFICER'S CELL PHONE NUMBER OR MEDICAL RECORDS.

THAT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE IN ANYBODY'S VIEW POINT BUT I WOULD DISAGREE THAT A POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FOR COMPLAINTS OR FOR ACTUAL MISCONDUCT.

>> MICHELLE, A BIG PART OF THIS CONVERSATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW IS THIS IDEA THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GIVE OUT UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS, THAIPTS, THAT THROUGH THEIR OWN VETTING PROCESS HAVEN'T BEEN FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE OR WARRANTING OF ADDITIONAL ACTION.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A MERIT TO THAT ARGUMENT?

SHOULD WE BE, AS-- IS THE PUBLIC WILLING TO DISREGARD THOSE COMPLAINTS OR IS THERE POSSIBLY A FACT PATTERN THAT IS WORTH THE PUBLIC LEARNING ABOUT, SAY IF AN OFFICER HAS DOZENS AND DOZENS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINS BECAUSE WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE REVIEW PROCESS.

>> AS MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PANEL ARE EXPRESSING THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW.

THIS IS-- THE LAWS ARE HAVE ARE CLEAR.

AND WE ARE FULLY IN FAVOR OF FULL DISCLOSURE; THATTITE SEEMS THAT MOST POLICE AGENCIES TEND TO FAVOR THEIR OFFICERS AND PROTECTING THEIR OFFICERS AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THE NERDS IN THE ROOM, THAT ARE BETTER VERSED ON THIS CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS SUBSTANTIATED AND WHAT IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND IT IS A HUGE BENEFIT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER HAS REPEATEDLY HAD COMPLAINS AND THAT'S OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.

>> RACHEL, IN OUR EXTENDED INTERVIEW, WE ASKED HER ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 50A AND SHE SORT OF PIVOTED TO THE LEGISLATURE'S RESPONSIBILITY IN CLARIFYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS THING, THAT THEY MIGHT NEED ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THAT THE RECORDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO BE PUBLIC OR ARE PUBLIC.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S A NECESSARY STEP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISCLOSURE THAT LAWMTION ENVISIONED IN THE SUMMER OF 2020 OR DO YOU THINK THAT THE SIMPLE REPEAL WAS ENOUGH OF AN ACTION TO MAKE THESE RECORDS ACCESSIBLE?

>> I THINK WE MAY WANT THE LEGISLATE LEGISLATURE TO LOOK AT THIS BUT AT THE SAME TIME WAS WAS MENTIONED IN THE INTERVIEW, THIS IS THE LAW THAT WAS PASSES.

THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS CLEAR AND IF THEY'RE ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS COUNTER TO THE LAW AND COUNTER TO CASE LAW, THEN, YOU KNOW, THE WAY PERHAPS TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM IS FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP SUING THESE POLICE DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND CASE LAW, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THIS INFORMATION IS EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE.

THAT SAID, IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO GO BACK AND MAKE SOME CHANGES, THAT COULD BE NECESSARY, BUT IN SOME WAYS, IT WOULD BE CONCEDING SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE CONCEDED IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> RACHEL.

I WANT TO STICK WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION OUT OF ALBANY AND DURING THE 2022 SESSION, WE SAW CHANGES TO NEW YORK'S OPEN MEETINGS LAW.

IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH SHOSONA EARLIER, SHE DOWNPLAYED THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CHANGES.

WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THE IMPACT THAT THE UPDATE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WILL HAVE TO THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO GET ENGAGED WITH GOVERNMENT BODIES AT ALL LEVELS?

>> SO I THINK THE KEY PART WHAT HAVE YOU JUST SAID IS WILL HAVE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THIS PLAY OUT YET WE ARE STILL UNDER A STATE OF EMERGENCY SO THE LAW HASN'T TAKEN EFFECT BECAUSE THERE IS STILL A COVID EMERGENCY.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS PLAY OUT.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN HOW THIS LAW WILL BE USED BY AGENCIES SO UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE SOME AGENCIES ARE HAVING MEETINGS ENTIRELY ONLINE AND SOME ARE MIXED AND SOME ARE IN PERSON.

WE REALLY DO NEED TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT BUT THE STATE OF EMERGENCY HAS TO END FIRST IN ORDER FOR US TO SEE HOW THE LAW IS GOING TO WORK.

>> WHAT IS THE RIGHT BALANCE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

HAVE I TO IMAGINE YOU HAVE AN OPINION HOW WE SHOULD NAVIGATE THAT LINE BETWEEN THE BENEFITS OF MEETING REMOTELY FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO OR CAN'T LEAVE THEIR HOME, VERSUS THE BENEFITS OF MEETING IN PERSON FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE THE REMOTE ACCESS THAT YOU CAN HAVE WHEN YOU HAVE, SAY A GOOD INTERNET CONNECTION.

>> THE IDEAL OF WHAT WE WANT IS A HYBRID SYSTEM.

WE WANT TO HAVE THE IN-PERSON ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE AT LEAST SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BODY HAVE TO BE THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS, FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC WHEN YOU ARE IN THE ROOM.

AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T PARTICIPATE REMOTELY BECAUSE OF DISABILITY, HEALTH ISSUES, CHILD CARE RESPONSIBILITIES AND THAT INCLUDES MEMBERS OF PUBLIC BODIES, I MIGHT ADD, TOO, WHO MIGHT HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS.

SO REALLY THE STATE SHOULD BE OFFERING BOTH AND WHAT THE NEW LAW DOES IS IT REQUIRES IN-PERSON ACCESS BUT IT ALLOWS THE OPTION OF ADDING ON REMOTE.

SO IT'S NOT A HYBRID BAND-AID.

IF A MEMBER OF A PUBLIC BODY IS GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, THE PUBLIC ALSO NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY BUT IT'S NOT QUITE THE HYBRID MANDATE THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.

>> TO PEEL BACK HOW THE JOURNALISM SAUSAGE IS MADE IN ALBANY, WHEN WE USED TO HAVE BUDGET HEARINGS AT THE CAPITOL, WE WOULD GET THE TOP OFFICIALS FROM THE CUOMO ADMINISTRATION WOULD COME DOWN TO HEARING ROOM B SIT BEFORE LAWMAKERS AND WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE THEIR ESCAPE, WE AS THE MEDIA WOULD BAMBOOZLE THEM, GRAB THEM AND START TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS THEY WERE PUTTING OFF.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO IN 2020, 2021 OR 2022 WHEN THEY WERE TESTIFYING REMOTELY.

SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW SO SHOULD WE BE PRESERVING SOMETHING THAT IS JUST ABOUT THE JOURNALISTIC ACCESS TO THE OFFICIALS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE TRYING TO DODGE, DUCK, DIVE, OUT OF OUR WAY?

>> IT'S TOUGH TO GRAB SOMEBODY BY THE ARM THROUGH ZOOM, BUT THERE IS ALSO ALMOST A MORE ACCESS IN SOME WAYS WITH ZOOM, ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

I THINK IT'S GREAT TO ALLOW CITIZENS TO HAVE A GREATER VIEW OF WHAT GOES ON IN THEIR LOCALITIES.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL SO I THINK IT'S GREAT TO EXPAND THAT AND IN SOME WAYS, IT COULD INCREASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

DEPENDING ON THE FORMAT AND WHETHER AND HOW THEY'RE IDENTIFIED, BUT AGAIN WE HAVE LOST A LOT BY BEING ABLE TO BE FACE TO FACE WITH PEOPLE BUT THAT'S THE WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN RIGHT NOW AND THE TECHNOLOGY IS ACCESSIBLE AND WE HAVE SEEN HOW EASY IT IS TO TRANSITION INTO HYBRID FORMATS WHETHER IT'S WORK, EDUCATION, OR GOVERNMENT MEETINGS SO IN?

WAYS, IT'S GREAT FOR ACCESS, IT REMIND ME BACK TO WHEN MUNICIPALITIES WERE GETTING WIRED WITH CABLE TV IN THE 70s AND 80s FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATINGS WERE BUT PEOPLE HAD THE OPTION TO SEE WHAT THEIR LOCAL LEGISLATORS WERE DOING.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM BY REQUIRING PEOPLE TO MEET IN PERSON REQUIRED OPPORTUNITY FOR JOURNALISTS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN ADOPTING FUTURE LAWS OR DO WE AS MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA NEED TO ACCEPT THAT MAY BE A BYGONE OF ANOTHER ERA.

>> IT JUST REQUIRES REPORTERS TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO REACH OUT TO SOURCES, PARTICULARLY PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT.

THERE IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT OBLIGATION TO TALK TO REPORTERS.

SO EVEN IF YOU ARE FACE TO FACE, IT'S EASY TO GET DODGED OR WORSE OR JUST IGNORED I THINK REPORTERS EVEN IN THESE TECHNOLOGICAL SETTINGS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THESE SOURCES TO TALK.

>> AND IF I COULD PIGGY BACK ON WHAT HE IS SAYING, THAT WE, OUR COALITION IS VERY FOR HYBRID MEETINGS.

AND I HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT REPORTERS AND IN MANY OTHER STATES, THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

IT'S MANDATED THAT NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS BUT ANY ITEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST BEFORE AN ACTION IS TAKEN BY A BODY.

AND AGAIN, I THINK NEW YORK STATE REALLY SHOULD MODEL THEIR LAWS AFTER NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES, WHICH ISN'T CURRENTLY OCCURRING.

>> AND YOU BRING UP THAT ISSUE.

I CAN SOMETIMES BE A LITTLE NARROW FOCUSED IN THINKING ABOUT OPEN GOVERNMENT, JUST THAT JOURNALISTIC PERSPECTIVE BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED, WHO ARE SUBMITTING RECORDS REQUESTS, MAYBE IT'S TO LEARN ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBOR AND THEIR HOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE ARE REAL CITIZENS WHO ARE PROMOTING GOOD GOVERNMENT AND I GUESS THOSE ARE PEOPLE YOU CAN'T LOSE SIGHT OF ON WHEN IT COMES TO OPEN GOVERNMENT, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

AND WE ARE VERY IN FAVOR OF THE HYBRID MODEL; FOR EXAMPLE, IN SEVERAL COUNTIES IN CENTRAL NEW YORK THAT I'M AWARE OF, PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT BUDGET ITEMS OR, YOU KNOW, ASK QUESTIONS OR HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT HOW ARPA FUNDS ARE BEING SPENT AND/OR QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEIR OFFICIALS ARE DOING BUT ARE BEING SILENCED AND DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT HOW THEY'RE TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT.

>> MOVING FORWARD, ARE THERE OTHER LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES WHEN IT CULLS TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW THAT REINVENT ALBANY OR SOME OF THE OTHER GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUPS SO THAT YOU WORK WITH, ARE HOPING TO GET THROUGH ALBANY?

OR IS YOUR FOCUS PRIMARILY ON IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE?

>> I THINK IT'S BOATS.

I KNOW MICHELLE MENTIONED AND WE SPOKE ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE DATA.

WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A MANDATE THAT AGENCIES HAVE TO REPORT ON THEIR FOIL REQUEST AND HOW MANY THEY GET.

THERE COULD BE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OR A CHANGE TO THE LAW.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS IN FOIL STRIPPED AWAY.

ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON IS THAT WHEN A CONSULTANT IS HIRED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THAT REPORT IS TREATED AS IF IT'S A STAFF PRODUCT AND UNDER FOIL, IT'S HARD TO GET THAT.

AND THAT'S TAXPAYERS DOLLARS PAYING FOR A CONTRACT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO PRODUCE A REPORT.

SOMETIMES THOSE REPORTS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AND INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY.

SO THAT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST ONE EXEMPTION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE STRIPPED AWAY SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAD ACCESS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS.

SO THERE IS A NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE FRONTS THAT WE LIKE TO LOOK AT.

WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE OPEN DATA LEGISLATED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

RIGHT NOW THERE IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THAT COULD BE CODIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF IDEAS OF HOW TO LEGISLATE BETTER MORE TRANSPARENT STATE GOVERNMENT.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT EXPANDING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND HOW IT APPLIES TO OUR STATE LEGISLATURE SO THAT LAWMAKERS AND THEIR STAFF HAVE TO PLAY BY THE SAME RULES AS STATE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS?

>> YES, I THINK THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE SYSTEM FOR THE LEGISLATURE UNDER FOIL, IS NOT A GOOD PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, ARE SUBJECT TO FOIL.

SO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL, A CITY OF MORE EIGHT MILLION PEOPLE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW.

SO WHY IS THE STATE LEGISLATURE NOT?

WE WOULD SUPPORT THE STATE LEGISLATURE BEING UNDER FOIL.

A BETTER STRENGTHENED FOIL, LET ME PREFACE THAT.

>> THEY WILL OFTEN SAY THEY'RE NOT COVERED BY FOIL BUT IT'S WRONG BUT THEY HAVE A LOT OF CARVEOUTS FOR THEMSELVES.

AND ROY, AS SOMEONE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING EDUCATE FUTURE JOURNALISTS WHO ARE GOING HAVE TO NAVIGATE ALL OF THIS, HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT BEST PREPARING THEM FOR THIS WORLD?

IS IT JUST ABOUT HAVING THEM LOOK THROUGH STATE LAWS AND MEMORIZE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW?

IS IT ABOUT KNOWING WHO TO CONTACT FOR ADVICE?

AND HOW DO YOU GET THEM SO THAT THEY'RE PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES WHAT IS OUT IS THERE?

>> I WANT STUDENTS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANT ROLE THEY HAVE ON BEING THE CHECK ON GOVERNMENT, TO BE THE PUBLIC'S EYES AND EARS, TO FIND THE RECORDS SO I THINK THERE IS A HUGE ELEMENT PREPARING STUDENTS TO KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND TO UNDERSTAND THESE AGENCIES AND THINK ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION IS OUT THERE THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT.

WHEN I WAS A REPORTER, THE NEWSPAPER WOULD GIVE US CARDS IF WE WERE GOING TO BE EXCLUDED FROM A PUBLIC HEARING OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.

I ALMOST HAD TO USE IT ONCE BUT THE JUDGE ACQUIESCED AND LET ME STAY IN THE PROCEEDING.

BUT JUST TO KNOW THAT YOU, LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN, HAS A RIGHT TO BE IN THAT PLACE UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A LEGITIMATE REASON, OR TO KNOW THAT THIS INFORMATION IS THERE.

YOU JUST NEED TO FIND IT.

YOU SORT OF NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, TOO THERE IS A ISSUE THAT STATE AGENCIES HAVE RULES THAT DON'T ALLOW STATE EMPLOYEES OR AGENCIESCY EMPLOYEES TO TALK TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOOSENING OF THAT, OPENING UP OF THE RULES TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT WORKERS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE FREELY IF IT WARRANTS THE DISCUSSION I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE CARD BECAUSE I REMEMBER BEING A REPORTER FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO IN A MEETING AT THE STATE CAPITOL, IT WAS THE SENATE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND THEY DECIDED ON THE FLY THAT THEY WOULD MEET IN A PRIVATE SESSION TO DISCUSS SOMETHING AND I POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THIS ALL THE WHILE TRYING TO PRESENT THE MOST CONFIDENT VERSION OF MYSELF AND NERVOUS I MIGHT PEE IN MY PANTS A LITTLE BIT.

LONG STORY SHORT, THEY SENT STAFF BACK TO A ROOM PRIVATELY AND CAME BACK OUT, WE'LL KEEP DISCUSSING THIS IN PUBLIC.

BUT HAVING THAT SORT OF TOOL WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL, I THINK ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNG REPORTERS WHO ARE NOT CONFIDENT OR DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH MAKES ME THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AN ADVOCACY GROUP LIKE THE NEW YORK COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT.

WHAT DO YOU VIEW AS YOUR ROLE IN TERMS OF HELPING EMPOWER, MAYBE NOT NOT JOURNALISTS BUT CITIZENS MORE BRADLEY SO THEY'RE AWARE OF THEIR RIGHTS AND NOT JUST IN TERMS OF INTERACTING WITH STATE AGENCIES BUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS?

>> MOST CITIZENS DON'T REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE.

I KNOW ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR COALITION JUST RECENTLY ENCOUNTERED THIS HIMSELF.

HE IS A MEMBER OF THE PRESS, BUT HE WAS HIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY WAS GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND HE OBJECTED TO IT FOR THE REASON AND ACTUALLY MADE THEM THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHY THEY WERE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND SO MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO MANEUVER IT.

SO HAVING EDUCATION, EVEN IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, I WAS NEVER TAUGHT CIVICS IN HIGH SCHOOL SO TO HAVE PROGRAMS IN PLACE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND YOU AT THE COALITION HAVE NOTED THAT THINGS LIKE COMPLIANCE WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW SAY AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, IS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SO SIMPLE.

I THINK THERE WAS A REPORT THAT DID YOU THAT FOUND ABOUT 60% OF COUNTIES RESPONDED WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF RECEIVING THE REQUESTS TO SAY THEY ACTUALLY HAD GOTTEN THE REQUEST THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO IN LAW.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT MUNICIPALITIES, IS IT REALLY HIT OR MISS?

TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN TERMS OF COMPLYING WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AS WELL AS THE OPEN MEETING LAW?

>> IT REALLY IS.

JUST WITH MY OWN EXPERIENCE THROUGH THE COALITION, AUDITING A LOT OF DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES IN REGARDS TO THE RECENT LAW CHANGES, MOST OF THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE UNINFORMED OF THE NEW LAWS OR THE RECENT CHANGES AND THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE INFORMED AND JUST KIND OF THUMB THEIR NOSE AT YOU AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT.

FILE AN ARTICLE 78.

>> AND DO YOU FIND THIS IS A PRODUCT OF ONE PARTICULAR POLITICAL PARTY THAT MIGHT BE IN POWER OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CROSSES ALL POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND IS A PRODUCT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POWER?

>> I THINK IT'S ACROSS THE SPECTRUM.

I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY OH THIS PARTICULAR PARTY IS BAD OR THIS PARTY IS BAD, YOU KNOW, JUST SPEAKING ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE FROM INDIANA TO NEW YORK, THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES AND IT WAS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT IS HAPPENING ACROSS THE BOARD AND AGAIN FROM OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE COALITION, NO MATTER WHETHER ITS RED, BLUE, WHITE, PINK, POLKA DOTTE, EVERYBODY COULD DO BETTER.

>> IN TERMS OF DOING BETTER, IS THERE REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC THAT ONE PARTY, DEMOCRATIC CONTROL, IN ALBANY, BOTH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE IN 2023 ASSUMING ELECTIONS GO AS WE EXPECT, WILL TACKLE ANY BIG CHANGES OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING?

YOU HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS?

>> I THINK UNFORTUNATELY IT'S THE LATTER BECAUSE PEOPLE IN POWER DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO SHARE ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEY REACHED THEIR DECISION.

THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEIR DECISIONS ARE GOOD AND THEY DON'T WANT TO LET YOU INTO THE DETAILS HOW THE DECISIONS ARE MADE SO I THINK IT GETS BACK TO THIS IS AN ONGOING STRUGGLE AND THOUGH THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION, THE GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL.

WE ELECT THEM BUT THEY NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT'S WHY IT'S GREAT TALKING TO YOU TODAY DOING THIS WORK.

>> ROY, ABOUT OF WE GO, CAN YOU PLUG THE TULLY CENTER WHERE SHOULD THEY GO.

>> SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S WEBSITE.

DIRECTLY TO TULLY.SYR.EDU.

INFORMATION ABOUT EVENTS, UPCOMING SPEAKERS, PAST SPEAKERS AND THINGS THAT WE DO.

>> SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION THERE.

AND UNFORUNATELY THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TODAY.

OUR GUESTS TODAY HAVE BEEN REINVENT ALBANY'S RACHAEL FAUSS - THE NEW YORK COALITION FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT'S MICHELLE ALLEN - AND TULLY CENTER FOR FREE SPEECH DIRECTOR ROY GUTTERMAN.

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY I'M DAVID LOMBARDO.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.