FOIL requests unanswered Murley still on leave Town Hall still mum

FOIL requests unanswered
Murley still on leave, Town Hall still mum



GUILDERLAND — Three weeks after Guilderland Police Chief James Murley was placed on paid administrative leave, town officials still remain silent.
Supervisor Kenneth Runion said the matter could take days or even weeks to resolve, but that either way, the town has to "work through the process" before information is released.

Some town residents have become increasingly frustrated and say they are entitled to know exactly what their tax money is paying for.
"I would really prefer to leave it as a personnel issue," Runion said earlier in the month amid rumors and speculation over why Murley was put on leave.
Runion did say yesterday that, although the town was "in an investigative phase," that "administrative leave is not punitive or disciplinary in nature."

Murley told The Enterprise earlier this month that he was placed on paid leave Thursday, Feb. 8, but said he could not discuss why. When asked why, the police department’s deputy chief, as well as the town’s supervisor and clerk, all stated it was a "personnel issue," and therefore protected from public disclosure under New York State Public Officers Law.

The Enterprise has sent several Freedom Of Information Law requests to Town Hall asking for various information such as Murley’s attendance record over the last five years, the town’s policies on administrative leaves, and a copy of the letter placing Murley on leave.

Murley is currently receiving his regular annual salary of $96,849.

The Enterprise FOIL requests were denied last week.
Guilderland has "no polices that describe the town’s process for determining administrative leaves, nor do we maintain a list of employees that have been previously placed on leave," wrote Stacia Brigadier, personnel administrator for the town of Guilderland.
Runion cited Murley’s "personal privacy" as the reason for denying the FOIL requests, and said the town has no statistical records of police employee attendance aside from accumulated sick and personal time banks.
"We don’t compile statistical attendance records," Runion said yesterday. "They file leave slips, and those slips have their reason for the leave, which is private information"We don’t have a statistical compilation."

Other departments in Town Hall do file monthly ledger sheets with dates of attendance, Runion said, but not the police department. Runion said Murley’s time bank will be prepared for The Enterprise and Town Hall will send the information today (Thursday).
"That’s the closest we’ve got for statistical information," he said about Murley’s attendance during the last five years. He added that he has never had an excessively absent employee.

Camille Jobin-Davis, assistant director of the New York State Committee on Open Government, told The Enterprise this week that it is entitled to the information it has requested.
"I’m surprised at the lack of detail in their denial," said Jobin-Davis. "Those records should have been provided to you."
Jobin-Davis said that, as a public employee, Murley’s attendance is a matter of public record and that any information deemed "private" in the records should simply be redacted, or removed. She said that also applies to the letter placing Murley on leave.
Robert Freeman, the committee’s director, has issued several advisory opinions over the years on the accessibility of personnel records for public employees. Freeman states courts have found that public employee records which are relevant to performance of their official duties is "a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Both Freeman and Jobin-Davis have said that "personnel issues" are not a valid excuse from a FOIL request.

The cost to the town has also become an issue.

William Klee, a certified public accountant and one-time economic development board member in Guilderland, says the town is footing the bill for the Murley matter on the taxpayer’s dime. (See related letter to the editor.)
"This is strictly a taxpayer concern," he said.

Klee had expressed anger towards the town in 2004 when he wasn’t reappointed to the economic development committee.
Klee ran an estimated cost analysis based on what he called "very limited information" from the town.

Included in the estimate is Murley’s salary, including benefits and his retirement plan; legal fees; overtime paid to police staff to cover Murley’s absence; and internal town cost for an investigation and to facilitate administrative policies and procedures.

The total could range from thousands to several hundred thousand, Kleee contends, but residents still have to shoulder these costs, he said.

The Enterprise has received calls from residents who share Klee’s sentiment.

Runion responded by saying the town has incurred no cost during Murley’s administrative leave.
"If Jim Murley was accruing any legal fees, he would be paying for them himself," Runion said. "We’re not obligated to pay any private legal fees of our employees."

Runion also said that the police department is not using overtime in Murley’s absence and therefore it is not resulting in extra cost.
However, he did say, that, "I cannot comment that there won’t be any cost in the future."

Runion would not comment on how long Murley will be out.
"I know everyone would like to have a deadline," he said, "but you can’t put a timeline on these things. We have to protect the town and our employees."

More Guilderland News

The Altamont Enterprise is focused on hyper-local, high-quality journalism. We produce free election guides, curate readers' opinion pieces, and engage with important local issues. Subscriptions open full access to our work and make it possible.