Hi,
I very much enjoy your bog. Can you tell me how I can find the list of salaries for town of Greenwich employees.
With kind regards
Steve Katz
COMMENT:
Dear Steve,
The salaries for town of Greenwich employees is public information and you are legally entiled to it. Basicaly, you write a letter to the Town Of Greenwich Clerk and tell her you are filing a freedom of information request for the saleries and overtime paid to all the Greenwich employees. The Clerk then has four days to repond to your requst.
If for some strange reason the town clerk was to deny your request, then you must file a complaint with....
Freedom of Information Commission
18-20 Trinity Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Telephone: (860) 566-5682;
TOLL-FREE (CT ONLY): (866) 374-3617
Fax: (860) 566-6474
EMAIL: foi@ct.gov
WEBSITE: http://www.state.ct.us/foi/
Thier Website Has A
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Page.
They Also Have This Page
You CAN Fight City Hall!
Eric V. Turner *
and
Gregory Daniels **
Public employees are frequently the butt of criticism which runs the gamut from laziness, to arrogance, to dishonesty from the citizenry of this state. Tales of unpleasant experiences abound, particularly with respect to front-line employees. Is such criticism fair?
We believe that, unfortunately, such criticism is fair.
Last spring the Connecticut Freedom of Information ("FOI") Commission and the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government commissioned a survey of local government to determine the level of compliance with the state’s FOI Laws. The survey results indicate that many municipal offices do not routinely comply with the requirements of the FOI Act. Three different kinds of public agencies were surveyed – school superintendents, police agencies, and municipal clerks’ offices. Each was asked to allow viewing of a particular category of records that are clearly public. The specific categories of records requested included teacher attendance records from school districts, arrest records from police agencies, and marriage license applications from clerks’ offices.
The agencies failed the test of compliance miserably, with an overall rate throughout the state of only 22 percent. While 67 percent of all agencies were rated as "very cooperative" or "somewhat cooperative" by surveyors, 15 percent received grades of "very uncooperative" and another 17 percent were considered "somewhat uncooperative." Throughout the comments registered by surveyors are reports that public employees were downright "rude" or "suspicious" or annoyed by the fact that the surveyors were asking to see records.
Based on this survey, the criticism of government workers may be well-founded and reflects an accurate perception of how government employees treat the citizens of this state. In fact, it could be respectably argued that some employees of public agencies are barriers to carrying out good and efficient public service.
According to the survey, about one-third of the employees were less than cooperative. Assuming that employees in both the public and private sectors are comprised of a relatively similar cross-section of the general population, private sector employees should produce a similar unsatisfactory result. There is one important difference, though. If a person encounters a business that provides poor service, that person can take his or her business elsewhere. Unless one moves, however, one cannot change where he or she does government business.
A natural consequence of an unhelpful or even disrespectful attitude on the part of public employees is the disinclination to deal with them. Thus, we wonder how many people do not utilize governmental processes because they fear a negative or discourteous response. Our experience at the FOI Commission has shown that very few minorities have filed complaints.
Although the survey did not test for racial discrimination, several minority surveyors informally reported that they felt unwelcome a number of instances when they presented their request for public records. Could it be that minorities bring a disproportionately small number of FOI complaints because they simply avoid making requests for information in order to avoid the possibility of an unpleasant or negative encounter with public employees?
But our government is only as bad as we allow it to be. Public officials must be held accountable. One way to do this is by seeking the information you want, and filing a complaint with the FOI Commission if you do not get it to your satisfaction.
The state Freedom of Information Act gives people the right to inspect or copy (at a marginal rate) public records. It also provides the right to attend most meetings of public agencies.
So, if you are denied access to government records of meetings, or if undue obstacles are placed in your way to effectuating your rights, utilize the process under the state FOI Act to obtain it. Contact the Freedom of Information Commission. More importantly, don’t be intimidated or deterred by unpleasant government employees. You do not have to move to get better government. Make your government accountable by insisting on your rights.
____________
*Eric V. Turner is director of public education for the state Freedom of Information Commission. **Gregory Daniels is a management analyst for the commission. For further information regarding the Commission, please contact us at (860) 566-5682 or
www.state.ct.us/foi/.And This Page....
PUBLIC OFFICIALS JUST DON’T GET IT
By Eric V. Turner, Director of Public Education, CT Freedom of Information Commission
In two recent newspaper articles, public officials made it appear that the Connecticut Freedom of Information (FOI) Act inhibited them from talking openly and honestly about the public’s business.
One official said that because of FOI laws, town council members can’t get together in private and try to work things out behind closed doors. In private, she stated, "We could just talk to each other as people, not as politicians."
Another former official voiced similar sentiments. He said he wishes he could have gone out for a beer with the other members of his board, even the ones with whom he disagrees. He reportedly said that he couldn’t do that because of FOI laws.
Nonsense! These statements illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding by some public officials not only of what the FOI Act requires of all public officials, but also of why such laws are needed in a democratic society.
First of all, nothing in the FOI Act prohibits government officials from talking to each other civilly and "as people, not as politicians." If they can’t do so publicly, that solely reflects on the character of the individuals concerned, not on the law. Second, nothing in the FOI Act forbids agency members from going out socially to get to know one another. In fact, the act expressly excludes from its coverage a "social meeting neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business."
Under the FOI Act, the public has the following three basic rights with respect to public meetings: to know that a public meeting will take place; to attend the public meeting; and to obtain the minutes of the meeting. Exceptions are permitted for some things like personnel matters, contract negotiations, legal strategy in connection with pending litigation, and security matters.
Generally speaking, what the FOI laws prohibit are public officials meeting in private to discuss the public’s business. After all, it’s the public’s business, not private or personal business that’s at stake here. And how else can the public know if their elected or appointed "public servants" are serving them well and how and why public funds are being spent, without requiring that the public’s business be conducted in a forum open to the public?
Unfortunately, public officials all too often seek secrecy for their own benefit or comfort - not for the good of the public. Therefore, when politicians make comments bemoaning the requirements for open public meetings, be wary. It may be because they believe they were elected to serve their own personal or partisan interests and not the interests of the citizenry.
It was 25 years ago this August that President Nixon resigned because of the "Watergate" scandals, which in turn, led to passage of FOI laws, including those in Connecticut. Do you remember the old adage that those who fail to heed the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them? To avoid a repetition of past mistakes, it’s incumbent upon public officials to ensure that the public’s business remain just that - public.
========================================
Please sebd your cooments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
