Top mayoral advisor Tim Pearson has pulled a hat trick and then some, now facing his fourth lawsuit over sexual harassment and retaliation stemming from his conduct while on the city payroll.
Buried in the newest complaint, brought 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 officials sought to avoid complying with the state Freedom of Information Law. Marmara was assigned to a newly formed Mayor’s Office of Municipal Services Assessment, which is run by Pearson.
The complaint says “The Administration also advised [Marmara] and his team to write the word ‘draft’ on every paper that they wrote regardless of whether it was in fact a ‘draft’ or not. This was done to avoid having to disclose documents if they are requested by the Freedom of Information law (“FOIL”). [Marmara] and his team complied with these directives.”
Of course, this is just one allegation in a broader complaint from Marmara, which is about the workings of the NYPD and the Municipal Services Assessment. And it’s not clear who the word “Administration” applies to, maybe Pearson or someone else? Is it the NYPD or City Hall?
Assuming this happened, it was done to thwart state law about transparency and openness in government. FOIL covers all agencies of government, which includes the NYPD, an entity that has a long history of trying to block any type of scrutiny or oversight.
The department is quite resistant to records requests and FOILs take a long time and more than often are denied.
FOIL may seem to some like an obscure tool for journalists and researchers, but it’s available to anyone and relies on a fundamental civic principle: that the business of the government is the business of the public, and the people should have insight into how it’s conducted. Draft materials are exempt from disclosure, but only draft materials.
If these allegations are true and someone was instructing Marmara and Municipal Services Assessment to doctor official documents specifically to shield them from release, it’s about more than just whether those particular documents would be available. It’s an indication that someone up the ladder did not believe the public is owed this access.
