Istock

In this envelope: lots of wasted taxpayer dollars

In an effort to overturn a state Freedom of Information Commission ruling, Greenwich is appealing a 2006 decision that not only found the town was in violation of the law, but could save a former First Selectman from paying a $100 fine. Question: at what cost to taxpayers?

The FOI Commission slapped the former selectman, Jim Lash, with the fine in 2006 after it ruled that he withheld public documents from Greenwich resident Stephen Whitaker. The town is appealing the decision in New Britain Superior Court, and oral arguments for the case are expected to begin next month.

The ruling stems from a 2001 incident in which Whitaker requested access to Greenwich's Geographic Information System (GIS), a municipal database with property information and aerial photos. In 2002, the commission ruled in Whitaker's favor, but the decision was appealed by the town. Whitaker ultimately won access to the documents in 2005, but the town is still battling over whether he is allowed access to updates to the GIS system—something the tonier-than-thou town says could be a security risk.

In 2006, Whitaker then requested a summary of the money the town spent on his requests since 2001. According to reports, it took Lash 18 days to hand over a single document, a violation under FOI law that resulted in the $100 fine. Whitaker says the town has not supplied him with two other documents, both memos to Lash from attorney Haden P. Garrish, who represented the town during the original FOI dispute.

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox says the appeal was necessary because the two documents in question fall under "attorney-client privilege."

As for the $100 fine, Fox says, it is "a very small portion of the issues before the superior court."

The Greenwich Time reported last week that Lash questioned Whitaker's motives for requesting the documents and also said, "Mr. Whitaker has cost the town a very large amount of money for no obvious reason."

Fox said Greenwich Assistant Town Attorney Valerie Maze Kenney is handling the current Superior Court appeal. Kenney, according to Greenwich's Human Resource Department, has an hourly salary of $64.84 and Fox said she has worked approximately 55 hours on this appeal, which comes out to $3,566.20.

According to Fox, it's "virtually impossible to tell" how much the municipality has spent fighting the FOI disputes, since the attorneys who work for the town are under salary.

Whitaker says just because the town says it can't put an exact dollar amount on these legal actions, the public "shouldn't allude to the fact" that the legal fees come cheaply. As for Kenney's fees, Whitaker says, "The $3,500 is misleading. It doesn't include the whole background to the original case." He is hoping the two documents will show why the town believes access to the GIS system and its updates could pose a security risk. If not, he says, the whole legal process would be "a big expensive farce."

Whitaker says it doesn't matter why he is seeking those documents. "To some degree my motives are irrelevant. To another, the purpose of FOI law is to assure that the public has access to hold accountable the workings of government. As we go high-tech with computerized mapping and assessment systems, how will we maintain accountability?" he wrote. The point, according to Whitaker, is to see if Greenwich broke the law. Whitaker believes the town did. "But what's worse is they feel that they can continue to skirt FOI and occasionally pay a small penalty or even no penalty."

Whitaker also says, "I used to think that they would clean up their act after several adverse decisions, and to some degree they have made progress in making important data-sets widely available in electronic form. Now I sense they will only go through the motions and will not develop a sense of 'trustees of the public's records' until someone loses elections over legal costs or a major decision hits home."