To the Editor:

I am writing to make the general public aware of how our Industrial Development Agency interacts with the public, but in this case, specifically with the Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth.

At the last meeting, held on April 29, 2025, there was a discussion about workforce housing [“Defining workforce housing, IDA chief asks, ‘Who are we truly helping and how?” The Altamont Enterprise, May 9, 2025].

This included looking at various documents from other counties that were posted on the agenda as well as a 23+ page document that was not shared with the public or placed online as required by Section 103(e) of the Public Officers Law.

In this instance, not only was the document not posted, even to this day, but when requested under a Freedom of Information Law request, I was told the document may or may not be given to me on or about May 30 after a review by the IDA.

The New York Committee on Open Government clearly stated in its opinion [posted with this letter], that this document should have been posted before the meeting and, if not then, it should have been posted as part of the agenda documents. To date, this has not been done.

In addition, to extend the date to 20 days does not appear to be appropriate in this instance. The IDA should be releasing these documents within the five days as they have them readily available and were discussed in the public forum.

Another issue that I raised was that Mr. [Guilderland IDA Chief Executive Officer Donald] Csaposs also functions as the FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] records officer as well as the appeals officer. This is clearly against guidelines outlined in the Public Officers Law. This needs to change immediately.

As we all know, workforce housing is the new buzzword for affordable housing that would allow the middle-income folks in our town to be able to work and live here. Since this is something that we all want to see, why the secrecy?

Why would the IDA, and Mr. Csaposs in particular, not want to be transparent?

We have worked long and hard to foster open government and transparency with our town government yet we have one board that does not wish to share and be transparent. It is clear that they do not work for the residents of this town, nor do they care about them. They are being retaliatory in their actions by not sharing and stonewalling for no other reason than they think they can.

Perhaps there needs to be an overhaul of this committee at the very least, but all and I mean all of them need to understand what the Open Meetings Law and FOIL require of them as a public corporation. If they don’t know or understand there are many documents and training programs available to them.

With actions such as this, the public is less likely to trust what they do or support them — but honestly, do they care?

Robyn Gray

Chairwoman

Guilderland Coalition For Responsible Growth

Editor’s note: Donald Csaposs responded, “The Guilderland I.D.A. follows what it considers a best practice of having all responses to FOIL requests reviewed by counsel. Accordingly, our practice is to transmit an initial response to requestors that a full response will be provided in 20 days. This is the practice that is followed with respect to all FOIL requests, regardless of who the request is made by. I am not aware of any ‘23-plus page document’ reviewed by the I.D.A. at its April 29 meeting. I believe that all materials reviewed by the I.D.A. Board have been posted to the I.D.A.’s website under the heading ‘Agenda Materials.’”