Personnel and disciplinary record, subject: Officer Frank Seddio (ret.)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

The complete personnel record of retired Police Officer Frank Seddio and all disciplinary records that identify Seddio as a subject. For specificity and to rule out duplicates, the subject Seddio's birthdate was 1946. His service dates were 1966 to 1988 (years both approximate and inclusive).

Divisions that may hold responsive records include Internal Affairs and Employment Management; however, any record used to evaluate performance toward the subject's continued employment or promotion should be considered responsive.

It is the requesting party's understanding that pursuant to legislation signed by the Governor of the State of New York, the law that prevented disclosure of this material (Civil Rights Law Section 50-a) has been repealed and all such records are now covered by the Freedom of Information Law.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Law as it has been amended by aforementioned legislation, records that may be released include "the complaints, allegations, and charges against an employee; the name of the employee complained of or charged; the transcript of any disciplinary trial or hearing, including any exhibits introduced at such trial or hearing; the disposition of any disciplinary proceeding; and the final written opinion or memorandum supporting the disposition and discipline imposed including the agency's complete factual findings and its analysis of the conduct and appropriate discipline of the covered employee."

Under the standard set by multiple court rulings, Freedom of Information Law uses a "balancing test" method of weighing privacy interests favoring redaction/denial vs. the public interest in favor of disclosure. This matter is of clear public interest for the following reasons: Frank Seddio is a public figure who has served in the elected position of Assembly Member. He served as leader of the Kings County Democratic County Committee from 2012 to 2019. He serves as Democratic District Leader, an elected office.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

T. McElwee

To whom it may concern:

I hereby APPEAL the Records Access Officer's decision to reject the request in the matter of FOIL # 2020-056-08791 ​in full.

Stated grounds for the rejection of this FOIL are that it "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." These grounds are invalid for a host of reasons.

First and foremost, the legislature repealed CRL 50-A, and laws replacing it explicitly state that police disciplinary records are generally subject to FOIL. There are a few exceptions; however, these exceptions are generally to be enforced through redaction of produced disciplinary records –not rejection of the FOIL request.

Second, citing privacy interest here is inappropriate. Other than police disciplinary records having no such privacy protections under the Freedom of Information Law, in citing any privacy interest to deny a FOIL request, the interest must be weighed in a balancing test against the public interest in disclosure.

Citing ample precedent, the privacy interests of the named subject (Frank Seddio) are diminished due to his status as a public figure. Seddio has served as a Surrogate Judge and as head of the Kings County Democratic County Committee. He continues to hold a position of power as a Democratic District Leader and Member of State Committee.

My prayer for relief to the Appeals Officer is the remand of this request to the Records Access Officer with instruction to make the necessary arrangements to comply with the request by locating and providing the records as requested, and to use redaction of the documents (not rejection) within the narrow scope of the Freedom of Information Law.

Sincerely,
T. McElwee