Top mayoral adviser Tim Pearson has scored a hat-trick and then some, now facing his fourth trial of sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from his conduct while on the city’s payroll.
Buried in the latest complaintbrought by NYPD Deputy Chief Miltiadis Marmara against City Hall, Pearson (who is also a former cop) and two high-ranking NYPD men, is a tidbit alleging how officers tried to avoid complying with the state The Freedom of Information Act. Marmara was awarded a newly formed Mayor’s Office of Municipal Services Assessmentwhich is operated by Pearson.
The complaint states that “management also advised [Marmara] and his team to write the word “draft” on every paper they wrote regardless of whether it was in fact a “draft” or not. This was done to avoid having to release documents if requested by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIL”). [Marmara] and his team followed those directives.”
Of course, this is just one allegation in a broader complaint by Marmara, which deals with the operation of the NYPD and Municipal Services Assessment. And it is not clear who the word “administration” refers to, maybe Pearson or someone else? Is it the NYPD or City Hall?
Assuming this happened, it was done to defeat state law on transparency and openness in government. FOIL covers all agencies, which includes the NYPD, an entity that has a long history of trying to block any kind of scrutiny or oversight.
The department is quite resistant to records requests and FOIL takes a long time and is rejected more often.
FOIL may seem to some to be an obscure tool for journalists and researchers, but it is accessible to all and relies on a basic civic principle: that the business of government is a public concern and that the people should have insight into how it is conducted. . Draft material is exempt from publication, but only draft material.
If these allegations are true and someone instructed Marmara and Municipal Services Assessment to process official documents specifically to protect them from release, it is about more than just whether the specific documents would be available. It’s an indication that someone up the ladder didn’t think the public was owed this access.