VFSC Report #15 on Burlington Freedom of Information

 

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

www.vtfsc.org

 

 

Report #15 of On-site VT Public Records Review of Burlington’s Anti-Gun Proposals

Burlington City Hall, 1/27 1:00 PM – 4:30 PM

 

On Monday January 27^th Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (VFSC) representatives Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were at Burlington City Hall for further review of Burlington documents and records that are responsive to the Vermont Public Records request that the VFSC originally filed on September 19^th 2013.

 

At this meeting, the city provided two new email folders containing 8 and 719 emails respectively, along with an additional folder of 39 assorted documents.  With these email releases the Federation reports that it has now been given 6,488 emails to date (which include duplicates), or 2,955 unique emails when duplicates are removed.

In preparing to be onsite for the 27th, the VFSC purposefully scheduled this visit to coincide with the final Hearing of the City Council on their three (3) proposed anti-2^nd Amendment Charter Changes.

 

In attempting to prepare for the City Council meeting itself, the VFSC felt that it would be beneficial to the public, and perhaps the Council itself, for the VFSC to report on the current number of documents and records which the City has either exempted or redacted.  The last time this number had been officially reported to us by the City was back on January 3^rd, at which time the total number of redacted/exempted documents stood at 304.  As the VFSC is certain that this number has grown since January 3^rd, and it is the VFSC’s further belief that this number has grown substantially, on Wednesday January 22^nd the VFSC began to request an updated Exemption Log.

 

From Wednesday January 22^nd to noon Monday on the January 27^th, the VFSC made 4 email requests with Chief Administrative Officer Bob Rusten for the Exemption Log.  In addition, VFSC representatives had two face-to-face meetings with Mr. Rusten on the afternoon of the 27^th, and in these meetings the VFSC specifically requested the Exemption Log, and the VFSC further asked that if the Exemption Log could not be produced for whatever reason that we be given a “ball park” number of Exemptions/Redactions.

 

Mr. Rusten would not produce the Log, with the reasons being that the “numbers were changing” and “the Log is not yet complete”. 

 

Let us be clear.  The “Exemption Log” as built by the City is nothing more than an Excel Spreadsheet.   This is a file format that is easily attached to an email.  Despite being given this Log several times previously, each time with the understanding that it was a work in progress and was still under development – the City failed to produce either the document, or give us a “ballpark” number, or even provide a simple comment as to whether the number had increased or decreased from January 3^rd.

 

In point of fact:  The Log will never be complete until the search for responsive records is completed.  Given that the City was just notified by the VFSC on January 3^rd that the searches they were previously using to produce records was seriously flawed, coupled with the VFSC’s belief that we have not been given any records from the corrected search to date; the VFSC expects that the Exemption Log count can only grow, and we further expect that it will grow significantly.  For obvious reasons the City would prefer to not let the general public become aware of just how many documents have been exempted from public review even though ALL of those documents and records were theoretically created by an “Open” process.

The Federation’s effort in Burlington will continue until we are satisfied that we have done more than just due diligence such that we can be fully confident that we have uncovered all there is to know and documented same.

 

Chris Bradley & Evan Hughes

Federation Response to Burlington over VT Public Records Review Request

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

16 Millstone Blvd, Barre, VT 05641

(802) 272-8544

 

To:       Bob Rusten, Chief Administrative Officer of Burlington

 

Date:   January 27, 2014

 

Re:       VFSC Freedom of Information Request

 

Dear Mr. Rusten,

 

This letter responds to your letter dated January 17, 2014 in which you assert:  "A list of the search terms the City intended to use was provided to you, and you were asked to provide feedback on that list.  You did not at that time request that we include any additional search terms. Therefore we believe that we have complied with your request to date."

 

The VFSC first submitted its request for public records to the City on September 18, 2013, which clearly sought very broad categories of records relating to potential regulation or prohibition of "firearms or other weapons."

 

The City did not begin to provide VFSC with any records of any sort until October 22^nd, one day after the City Council's October 21^st vote on firearms matters.

 

When VFSC first went on-site to begin the review of records on October 22, a meeting was held in Scott Schrader's Office, and in that meeting was Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes of the VFSC, in addition to Eugene Bergman, Scott Schrader and yourself representing the City.  Mr. Bradley took notes of that meeting, and those notes indicate that the City related that there were fourteen (14) "search terms."  The City did not provide a list of what those terms were, and in discussion with Mr. Schrader on January 17^th about this issue, he recalled the reference to 14 "search terms" as well.

 

Between October 22 and November 27, the City sent VFSC six (6) letters reporting various exemptions & progress, dated 10/22, 11/1, 11/6, 11/8, 11/15 and 11/26 (with an additional two letters having been sent by the City to the VFSC between September 18 and October 22) with NONE of those eight (8) letters listing ANY of the search terms used.

 

On November 27, approximately two months AFTER the VFSC's September 18 records request, you send a letter to VFSC on behalf of the City, with an opening paragraph describing the letter as an "update."

 

On the second page of that November 27 "update," the third of seven paragraphs mentioned certain specific terms.  Nothing highlighted that the City had confined its search to those terms, nor did the City ever seek confirmation from VFSC that those limited terms were acceptable to VFSC or would be likely to uncover all records of interest to VFSC.

 

The terms mentioned on the second page of the November 27 "update" is distinctly shorter than the fourteen (14) referenced to VFSC on October 22 when the City first began to provide records.

 

In distinct contrast, the City's own internal memorandum of Oct 10, 2013, at 5:54 PM from Scott Schrader to "Department Heads, City Attorney's Office Personnel, William Ellis, Esq., Mayor and City Council" states, at paragraph 9:  "If you have doubt as to whether a record, message or document pertains to this request, you must err on the side of caution and provide my office with the record."

 

The VFSC does not accept the City's claim that a search for plural terms, omitting singular terms, would be expected to identify all records of interest to VFSC.

 

The VFSC does not accept the City's suggestion that the time and manner of the City's oblique, indirect, and untimely November 27 mention of certain terms even vaguely resembles sincere or adequate compliance with the requirement at Title 1, Section 318(d) that "a public agency shall consult with the person making the request in order to clarify the request or to obtain additional information that will assist the public agency in responding to the request and, when authorized by this subchapter, in facilitating production of the requested record for inspection or copying."

 

The VFSC therefore thanks the City for recognizing the significant flaws that were inherent in its initial searches, and requests that the City continue on its new course to provide all records which are responsive to our request.

 

Sincerely,

Evan Hughes

Vice President - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

 

CC:

Miro Weinberger, Mayor, City of Burlington

Burlington City Council

Eileen Blackwood, City Attorney

Eugene Bergman, Assistant City Attorney

 

VFSC Report #14 on Burlington PRR on Gun Control Ordinances

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

www.vtfsc.org

 

 

Report #14 of On-site VT Public Records Review of Burlington's Anti-Gun Proposals

Burlington City Hall, 1/17 10:00 AM– noon

 

On Friday January 17^th Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were at Burlington City Hall for further review of Burlington Documents and records that are responsive to the Vermont Public Records Review Law request that was originally filed on September 19.

 

At this meeting, the city provided one new email folder which contained 609 emails, bringing the total number of emails provided by the City for our examination to 5,761 (which include duplicates). 

In regards to the count of exempted/redacted documents we were not given an update (we will expressly ask for this at our next meeting); but we believe that there is more forthcoming.  The number of exempted or redacted documents therefore still stands at 304.

 

An interesting development in this Public Records Request is that the Federation has come to believe that the search used by the City to produce all the documents to date is faulty, meaning that under the search method the City was using – documents that would otherwise be responsive to our request will be missed. 

 

The Federation therefore believes that the City will have to now go back to expand their search, and we absolutely expect more documents to be produced.

The Federation's effort in Burlington will continue until we are satisfied that we have done more than just due diligence such that we can be fully confident that we have uncovered all there is to know so that we can then bring those issues into the light. 

 

Chris Bradley & Evan Hughes

Burlington Public Hearing on Monday, the 27th (see photo)

Burlington will have its last public hearing starting at 6 PM on Monday, January 27th.

This is the last chance for the pubic to speak in opposition to the gun control ballot

issues before the March 4, Town Meeting Day vote.  The legislature is watching.

 

This meeting will be a year after the Burlington City Council's first meeting on its

proposed gun control ordinances.  The first meeting was January 7, 2013 and

we had a huge turnout of our folks.  Our folks packed the room.  This photo does   

not even show the progun folks along the other walls and in the balcony.

 

Once again, we need a big turnout to show that gun rights supporters have

not grown passive about protecting the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights.

Burlington is attacking the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights. If Burlington the gun

control issues are passed on Town Meeting Day this will go to the state legislature.

If Burlington is able to get an exemption to this law, that protects shooting, hunting,

trapping, fishing and the ownership of guns, reloading, and the ranges in Vermont,

municipalities all over Vermont will want the same exemptions.

Our Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights will be dead. We will have a patchwork of

conflicting and draconian laws all over the state.

The antigun element is telling the leadership of the legislature that the demographics

in Vermont have changed. That the folks who support protecting all of the aspects

of your values that are protected by the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights either

no longer exist or are just lazy/passive and don't care about protecting their rights.

Show up at the Burlington hearing on January 27th, show YOU are still very much here.

Show the Vermont Legislature you are not prepared to surrender your rights.

Support your Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights.

Last BTV Public Hearing on Proposed Gun Control Ordinances...(Please Read)

Burlington will have its last public hearing starting at 6 PM on Monday, January 27th.

This is the last chance for the pubic to speak in opposition to the gun control ballot

issues before the March 4, Town Meeting Day vote.

Burlington is attacking the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights.   If Burlington the gun

control issues are passed on Town Meeting Day this will go to the state legislature. 

If Burlington is able to get an exemption to this law, that protects shooting, hunting,

trapping, fishing and the ownership of guns, reloading, and the ranges in Vermont,

municipalities all over Vermont will want the same exemptions.

Our Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights will be dead.  We will have a patchwork of

conflicting and draconian laws all over the state. 

 

The antigun element is telling the leadership of the legislature that the demographics

in Vermont have changed.  That the folks who support protecting all of the aspects

of your values that are protected by the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights either

no longer exist or are just lazy/passive and don't care about protecting their rights.

Show up at the Burlington hearing on January 27th, show YOU are still very much here.

Show the Vermont Legislature  you are not prepared to surrender your rights. 

Support your Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights. 

Burlington City Council Public Hearing on Proposed Gun Control Ordinances

 

There was another Burlington City Council public hearing on the three proposed gun control ordinances. 

This political gun control campaign seeks to dismantle the protections of the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights.

If Burlington is successful, municipalities all over the state would have a precedent to try to enact ordinances that

regulate/ban firearms, mags., ammo, shooting, reloading, hunting, fishing and trapping and control Vermont's ranges.

 

A look at the photo, which is an attachment, shows that once again the number of people opposing the gun control

ordinances clearly outnumbered the pathetic turnout of supporters.  Most of the folks in the audience did not speak.  

But, of those who did speak on the gun ordinances, 12 opposed and 3 supported.  All of the antigun people spoke.

 

It was obviously a pro-gun rights crowd and the city council sat silently and adjourned the hearing without comment.

 

This public hearing was at noon on a weekday.  A difficult time for working folks to be present.

 

The final public hearing on the three proposed gun control ordinances are at Burlington City Hall at 6 PM on Monday,

January 27th.  If you do not like the way Burlington is going forward, you can E-mail them at the addresses below and

politely relate "Please cease the gun control attack on the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights"   Ask for an explanation?

 

miro@burlingtonvt.gov; brusten@burlingtonvt.gov; baubin@burlingtonvt.gov; tayres@burlingtonvt.gov; mike@burlingtonvt.gov; sharon.bushor@vtmednet.org; kevinwbtv@gmail.com; janeknodell@burlingtontelecom.net; maxwell.k.tracy@gmail.com; vbrennan@burlingtonvt.gov; rsiegel@burlingtonvt.gov; jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net; chip.mason.btv@gmail.com; normblaisvt@gmail.com; paulfin@sover.net; pdecellesw7@aol.com; ebergman@burlingtonvt.gov; eblackwood@burlingtonvt.gov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VFSC Public Records Request Letter of 1/13/14 to Burlington

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

16 Millstone Blvd, Barre, VT 05641

(802) 272-8544

 

To:       Bob Rusten, Chief Administrative Officer of Burlington

 

Date:   January 13, 2014

 

Re:       VFSC Freedom of Information Request

 

Dear Mr. Rusten,

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs (VFSC) wants to bring the following to the attention of the City of Burlington in regard to VFSC's public record requests.

 

1.      During VFSC's January 9, 2014 visit to the City to examine documents that the City has continued to produce in response to VFSC's original request, VFSC's representatives detected an instance in a "chain" of 3 emails where the City had separately produced the 2^nd and 3^rd emails of the "chain"; however the first email was never independently produced, identified, redacted, or withheld even though it absolutely appeared to be responsive to the VFSC's request.

Upon closer examination, VFSC's representatives noted that the initial email (the one that was never independently produced) referred to the term "gun" (singular) whereas the 2^nd email in the chain referenced the term "guns" (plural).  Since the text of the 2^nd email was carried forward into the 3^rd email, and assuming that the City had only searched for the plural word "guns", then both emails #2 and #3 would have been found, whereas email #1 would only be found if the singular form of "gun" was searched for.

VFSC's representatives brought this situation to the attention of the City's representative Scott Schrader, who, after checking, confirmed that the City has only searched for the words: "firearms", "guns", "weapons", "knives", "bows and arrows", and the singular term "assault rifle" - but not the singular terms of the aforementioned plural terms.

Given that a search for the plural form of any given search keyword will never return a document that only contains a reference to the singular form of the same keyword, the VFSC therefore brings the City's attention to the fact that the City's searches and responses to date have failed to comport with VFSC's request of September 18 2013 for "Anything relating to drafts, proposals, strategies, advantages, disadvantages, or any other consideration for or against any form of possible local or state regulation or restriction of or change in statutes relating in any way to firearms or other weapons" and as focused (without waiving the earlier and broader request) on (October 18) "firearms, accessories, ammunition and components thereof."

A requester is not responsible for checking the efficacy of the methods that a unit of government uses to find and produce records, but the government is responsible for producing records responsive to a request - and for knowing or finding what records it has that are responsive to a request.

VFSC therefore respectfully insists that the City promptly undertake intensive searches to make sure that the City immediately produces all records with substantive content matching VFSC's requests.

2.      Since it is now almost 4 months since VFSC's record request to the City, and the City has still not produced all records responsive to VFSC's initial request, VFSC does, by this paragraph, make a new, additional request for any materials of the type, nature, and subject matter covered by VFSC's September 2013 request - but that have been created, transmitted, received, or modified since VFSC's original September request. This new request does not allow the City to reset the clock on its obligations and deadlines to respond to the VFSC's original request.

3.      In the City Council's agendas, VFSC has noted that it is typical that certain "Communications" are put into the Deliberative Agenda for a City Council meeting in order to bring those communications to the attention of, and to have them formally acknowledged by, the Council. VFSC requests that the City produce any and all policies or records, formal or informal, setting or reflecting criteria for decision or discretion as to what communications are or are not included in agendas of the City Council or any committees of the City Council. If there are no guidance policies, please identify the official or officials who make such decisions.

 

Sincerely,

Evan Hughes

Vice President - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs

 

CC:

Miro Weinberger, Mayor, City of Burlington

Burlington City Council

Eileen Blackwood, City Attorney

Eugene Bergman, Assistant City Attorney

 

VFSC Report #12, Burlington Review (Withheld/redacted Documents Numbers Explode)

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

www.vtfsc.org

Report #12 of On-site VT Public Records Review of Burlington's Anti-Gun Proposals

Burlington City Hall, 1/3 10:00 PM– 4:30 PM

On Friday January 3^rd Chris Bradley and Evan Hughes were at Burlington City Hall for further review of Burlington Documents and records that are responsive to the Vermont Public Records Review Law request that was originally filed on September 19.

At this meeting, the city provided two new email folders which contained 391 and 465 respectively – for a total of 856 "new" emails (which include duplicates). In regards to the count of exempted/redacted documents – this has now swollen from 117 to 328 – however the City reversed itself on 24 documents of the 328 as a result of the Federation's initial appeal, leaving a current total of 304 documents still being exempted from public scrutiny. The Federation currently has no reason to suspect that there will not be even more exempted / redacted documents forthcoming, against which we will file another appeal.

While there are a number of serious issues and questions concerning the entire process which the Federation will be bringing to light in the very near term, the Federation believes it speaks volumes when a Vermont municipality knowingly withholds 304 documents from public scrutiny when these same 304 documents were theoretically developed as a result of an "open" government process.

One thing for certain, it is painfully evident to the Federation that citizens who are concerned with Burlington's blatant attempt to infringe on the rights of all Vermont Sportsmen by "backdooring" 24 VSA 2295, better known as the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights, have deluged the City with our messages, with our messages swamping those with opposing views by a HUGE factor. We need to continue this effort.

Please: Email the Burlington City Government by copying and pasting the following email list into an email and tell them: "Please end your attack on legally-owned firearms and the Vermont Sportsmen's Bill of Rights!"

miro@burlingtonvt.gov; brusten@burlingtonvt.gov; baubin@burlingtonvt.gov; tayres@burlingtonvt.gov; mike@burlingtonvt.gov; sharon.bushor@vtmednet.org; kevinwbtv@gmail.com; janeknodell@burlingtontelecom.net; maxwell.k.tracy@gmail.com; vbrennan@burlingtonvt.gov; rsiegel@burlingtonvt.gov; jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net; chip.mason.btv@gmail.com; normblaisvt@gmail.com; paulfin@sover.net; pdecellesw7@aol.com; ebergman@burlingtonvt.gov; eblackwood@burlingtonvt.gov

The Federation's effort in Burlington will continue until we are satisfied that we have done more than just due diligence such that we can be fully confident that we have uncovered all there is to know so that we can then bring those issues into the light. In the meantime, please be assured that our actions on your behalf ARE having a HUGE impact, and please keep sending your POLITE emails to the email addresses above to insure that the pressure on Burlington not only just continues, but increases.

Chris Bradley & Evan Hughes

Burlington Response Letter 12/31, VFSC Reply to BTV

Proudly Serving Vermont Since 1875

16 Millstone Blvd, Barre, VT 05641

(802) 272-8544

 

To:       Bob Rusten, Chief Administrative Officer of Burlington

            Miro Weinberger, Mayor, City of Burlington

 

Date:   January 8, 2014

 

Re:       VFSC Freedom of Information Request (Response to Letter of December 31)

 

Dear Mr. Rusten,

In response to your letter of December 31, let us be clear on a few points.

 

You did not relate until an E-mail sent at 4:58 PM of December 30 that City was anything more than "likely" to meet the city's self-imposed deadline of the end of the year.

In addition, very recently the City provided the federation with a file, sent via email, which was empty of the pertinent emails it was supposed to have contained. 

 

On Monday 12/23, the City provided a letter from the mayor and a log of 117 documents previously withheld from the federation, which related that the city had changed its position on 25 documents.  We were told by Scott Schrader that the now released, formerly withheld documents would be in "Ok to inspect 13" file on the City's laptop computer.

 

In cross-referencing the contents of that file with the log of withheld documents, Chris and I discovered that only 3 of the documents cited in the mayor's letter were in the file.  We pointed out the problem of the missing documents to Scott and waited patiently for the production of same.  We received the documents just minutes before the end of business hours of city hall.

 

Upon further inspection however, we were still missing one of the 25 documents that had been released, and we were further told that the document with an ID of 83 in the exemption log, which had been updated to show as "Disclose", the City had just barely reversed themselves on – and opted to continue to withhold it – even though it had already been released previously?

 

Given the late notice that the city would have in fact completed the review for release of the previously withheld documents, a lack of answer to my last E-mail of December 30, and the recent practice of the City to failing to provide all of what it had said was being made available:  The Federation believes we are being more than reasonable and we question why it is up to us to determine when the City has in fact given all that it said it did.

 

Had the city undertaken the compiling of public records in a timelier manner, for example not waiting approximately a month before notifying your City Councilors in writing that they really did need to comply with our Freedom of Information Request, this all could have been accomplished and made available to us well before December 31st.

 

Finally, we would like to respond to your "answers" in the last paragraph of your letter.  Firstly, and in response to our polite inquiry of the Public hearing schedule for the proposed Charter Changes, you indicated that the "time and place" of the upcoming Charter Change Committee meetings of January 17^th (*not* the 7^th as shown in your letter) and the 27^th are posted on the City's website.  After examining the main page and consulting with "Meeting Calendar" link, we note you are correct.  However, when a hapless citizen goes to "Agendas & Minutes" from the Burlington Home Page, one is taken to a "Public Meetings" page.  If you then click "Mayor & City Council", then click "City Council", then click "Meeting Schedule" you are taken to this link:

 

http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CityCouncil/City-Council-Meeting-Schedule/

 

While we agree that the date, time and place of the Hearing for January 7^th *IS* properly shown on the above referenced page, we note that the date of January 27^th does *NOT* show a time, and further seems to be flagged with an "A" code, which seems to indicate "Adjourned" according to the key at the top of the page.  This is then cited as providing accurate information?

 

Secondly, we asked about the status of the minutes of the Charter Change Committee from December 11^th, which were not posted to the web as of December 31^st.  Much like our initial letter of September 19^th 2013, which was sent under a subject of "Freedom of Information Request (FOIR)" and which the City somehow immediately disregarded as not being a "request" at all; so it would appear that we want to play the same game with the minutes of December 31^st.  Fortunately, they have now been posted (I believe only as of yesterday – with a convenient "NEW" tag), so we will get them ourselves without bothering to ask the City for them again.

 

 

Sincerely,

Evan Hughes

Vice President - Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs