They used to provide the database online, in a very non-user-friendly interface. I managed to make a copy of the data; a couple of days later, they shut the website down.
Since I wanted an official copy, I made the filing. They rejected my request, saying the data did not exist. Thankfully I made a backup of the website and the data, so I know that it the claim was rejected on a falsehood. John, Your experience is very important in two ways. When I discovered that the city planning commission and historical commission were creating false records of hearings and approving these, I dealt with a similar smokescreen. When immediately referred to the "written record" by staff, I informed the historical commission chief that the actual "public record" was the recording of the proceedings and not the false document which was produced and used by them! You need to be prepared to go through the initial smokescreen and demand at least part of the data that you know they cannot deny, and be ready to challenge their rejection in court. If you think about it, any coverup is going to start with the claim that records don't exist in whatever form. The law has nothing to do with records which should be created but are not created. That will be the first rejection from these clowns. During the budget show, I was told that data was requested about the tax records for large corporations not based in Philadelphia. Of course, the data was not accessible! All we knew was that out of town corporations have gotten nice reductions in the gross receipts portion in recent years and that we suspected that their accountants knew how to show a profit of 1 dollar on the net profits!!! In other words, the newspaper stand pays Philadelphia taxes and multinational soda and beer corporations do not. Secondly, you also found an incomplete or deficient record first offered as the public smoke screen. We cannot know for sure, but in your example, it looks like the staff understood that the records offered were problematic, when they took down the web site and rejected your request. Was it all a mistake of incompetence or were the web records pulled because you lit a candle in their dark room? As long as we fail to demand transparency over those things which should be transparent, it's hard to differentiate between incompetence and corruption. >I will always be amazed me by the consistency of Philadelphia's >leaders to disappoint its citizens." I hear ya!!!! Thanks for sharing that example, Glenn -----Original Message----- >From: John Ellingsworth <[email protected]> >Sent: Jul 1, 2009 9:58 AM >To: Glenn moyer <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [UC] confidential documents, PA law > >I made a right to know filing against the historical commission for >access to their register of historic places database. > >They used to provide the database online, in a very non-user-friendly >interface. I managed to make a copy of the data; a couple of days >later, they shut the website down. > >Since I wanted an official copy, I made the filing. They rejected my >request, saying the data did not exist. Thankfully I made a backup of >the website and the data, so I know that it the claim was rejected on >a falsehood. >(You can see my own instance of the data at >http://welcometophilly.com/register/ ) > >I was disappointed, but not surprised. I have been involved with >numerous projects where we tried to work with the city, only to be >stymied by them. (I suspect that since there was no opportunity for >money to be made, nor votes to be acquired, they didn't care.) > >I will always be amazed me by the consistency of Philadelphia's >leaders to disappoint its citizens. > >Regards, > >John Ellingsworth > > >On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Glenn moyer<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "The settlement was marked "confidential," but the city released it to The >> Inquirer under the state Right to Know Act." >> >> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20090701_Phila__settled_firefighters__discrimination_suit.html >> >> >> Neighbors, >> >> This is just another example of where local tax dollars end up. Of course, >> the tiny number of cases brought against the out of control police force >> account for a much larger share of our tax dollars than this settlement. >> >> The important thing about this article was the Inquirer's use of the updated >> PA "Right To Know Law" City hall is corrupt and/or incompetent from the top >> of Billy's hat to the bomb shelter far below. >> >> This PA state law is the best hope for citizens to harness our local >> government!! It should be used by newspapers (well done Inquirer!!!) and >> citizen activists to bring transparency and accountability to every >> department of the the incompetent and corrupt entity known as the >> Philadelphia city government. >> >> A citizen, >> Glenn >> ---- >> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see >> <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. >> ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
