Back to Mayor’s Mansion main page
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA April 26, 2005 BY HARD COPY AND E-MAIL Scott A. Hodes, Esq. RE: Bray v. District of Columbia. Civil Action No. 03-8365 Dear Mr. Hodes: I write in connection with Mr. Bray's request for records relating to the Casey Mansion and the civil litigation instituted on Mr. Bray's behalf pursuant to the District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act, D.C. Official Code § 2-531 et seq. (2001). When Mr. Bray's FOIA request was received in January 2003, it was transmitted only to one office within the Executive Office of the Mayor ("EOM") -- the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development ("ODMPED"). A search was conducted within the ODMPED and the Office of Planning (the "OP") for records, as specified in Causton Toney's affidavit, dated June 1.5, 2004. We acknowledge that Mr. Bray's incoming request should have been forwarded to other units within the EOM besides the ODMPED. It should be noted that a relatively small number of documents related to the Casey Mansion had been created at the time and would have been deemed responsive had a broader search been instituted. You have advised us that Mr. Bray has a signed receipt for a second FOIA request submitted in July 2003. Our repeated efforts to locate a copy of this second FOIA request have been unsuccessful. In October 2003 and January 2004, the EOM received further FOIA requests from investigative journalists for documents relating to the Casey Mansion. In response to these requests, searches were conducted throughout the EOM, as specified in Lucy Pittman's June 16, 2004 and April 26, 2005 affidavits. The records located in response to the October 2003 and January 2004 requests and deemed not to be subject to exemptions under the FOIA were disclosed to the inquiring reporters who had filed the FOIA requests. Those records were located in relevant units of the EOM as well as in the OP. That latter office technically is not part of the EOM, but we forwarded the reporters' requests to OP on the understanding that that office was likely to have responsive documents. Many of the documents located in response to the October 2003 and January 2004 FOIA searches did not exist when Mr. Bray submitted his FOIA request in January 2003 and hence could not have been produced in response to that request, even if the number of offices searched had been expanded as it subsequently was in late 2003 and early 2004. On behalf of the Mayor and the government of the District of Columbia, we acknowledge that the EOM should have conducted a broader search for responsive documents in response to Mr. Bray's initial FOIA request. We regret any inconvenience or delay that the oversight in the EOM has caused Mr. Bray. We acknowledge that Mr. Bray and his fellow community members devoted time and energy to the pursuit of public documentation and may have been impeded in presenting fully informed views in addressing the merits of the Casey Mansion issue. You have recently asked us to conduct a renewed search for correspondence with the National Park Service related to the EOM. As appears in Ms. Pittman's April 26, 2005 affidavit, that search has revealed only documents that were previously disclosed in connection with the searches undertaken in response to the FOIA requests received from journalists in October 2003 and January 2004, as described above. Sincerely, cc: Causton Toney, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA April 29, 2005 Scott A. Hodes, Esq. [Sent Via Electronic Mail: infoprivacylaw@yaboo.com] RE: Settlement of Howard Bray v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 03-8365 Dear Mr. Hodes: In settlement of the above-captioned case, I have enclosed two copies of the following information:
In addition, the District of Columbia has agreed to pay plaintiff's attorney's fees of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in this matter. In that regard, I have included herewith a Release for plaintiff to sign and a tax form W-9. Thank you and your client very much for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely,
By: Urenthea McQuinn cc: Leonard H. Becker |
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
