Saturday, March 12, 2016


The following letter from Croton United Chair Roseann Schuyler appeared in this week's Gazette:

To the Editor: As chair of Croton United I was gratified to read in last week’s Gazette that we have gained yet another supporter of our long-held positions concerning transparency and open government here in the village. Croton Dem Trustee Brian Pugh has now joined us in calling for the proactive disclosure of public documents and for upgrading the village’s website to make access to the information presented there easy and straightforward. These are issues that we have championed since our formation and we are proud of our record of accomplishments—notably with regard to video recording of village board work sessions and requiring the public disclosure of village contracts prior to their adoption. 



  1. Let's get this on the agenda as soon as possible. Linda

  2. Kind of funny to hear the democrats from this board talking about freedom of information. Mr. Pugh certainly didn't have anything to say when documents were improperly redacted (Rick Turner letter on the mayor's health insurance) or when residents had to wait forever for Gouveia documents. Then the silence was deafening.

    1. The irony isn't lost on A LOT OF PEOPLE!

  3. Employee salaries and benefits (medical costs, longevity, etc.) were published at budget time in the past. That's how we found out about Mayor Wiegman's attempt to have Croton pay for his medical benefits. That data was eliminated under the his administration. I hope that the new Schmidt administration will resume the practice do letting Croton voters see how much each employee is receiving in salary and benefit. Note that the FOIL request for this data was denied.

    In another instance, data regarding the final report by one consultant regarding qualifications for a Village manager was also denied. The cost of the report was $1200 ($100 per hour) but details such as time, recommendations, etc. were also denied. This information should have been public except for a Catch 22 regarding consultants.

    Both instances occurred during the Wiegman administration. That's not Freedom of Information. Perhaps Mr. Pugh can explain the circumstances about why the FOIL was denied.