Lawsuit Filed Against WAC

Petitioner Concerned With Fairness & Transparency

By Mary A. Crisafulli

WALTON - Colm Ryan, of Hamden, filed a lawsuit against the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC) on July 25. Ryan, the petitioner, is concerned with fairness and transparency of WAC operations.

WAC works with farm and forest landowners in the New York City watershed to protect water quality. WAC is a private 501C3 and funding comes from several grants and contracts through the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Funding supports the development of whole farm plans, forest management plans, and conservation easements. The organization is funded roughly 98% by DEP.

The lawsuit focuses on WAC compliance with FOIL (freedom of information law). FOIL requires all governmental agencies to produce documentation upon public request and lays out guidelines for responding to such requests promptly. An agency is required to grant, deny, or acknowledge the receipt of a FOIL request within five business days.

The question is, is WAC considered a municipal entity? Well, Ryan's suit calls for the court to officially declare WAC an agency subject to FOIL.

The petition states that Ryan is pursuing litigation as a last resort after several unfulfilled FOIL requests. On Dec. 15, the petitioner submitted a FOIL request for several documents including progress reports, annual work plan, Best Management Practice (BMP) workload and reports, and prioritization of BMPs. Ryan was requesting documents from 2018 to present.

On Dec. 18 the petitioner further requested documents including the strategic plan, economic viability plan, WAC employee list and compensation, all nutrient management credit participants and earnings, and several other documents pertaining to BMPs for years between 2011 to present. Ryan also requested any documents reflecting time spent responding to FOIL or transparency policy requests.

WAC Executive Director Ryan Naatz responded to the initial request on March 28. Naatz granted most of Ryan's requests pending payment of $2,559.03 as compensation for staff time retrieving the documents. Naatz explained in his letter to Ryan that all documents requested require redactions. The request for a GIS polygon layer for 2018 to present was denied. "It is not possible for WAC to provide this information without disclosing the identifying information of WAC's participants which is not subject to disclosure under WAC's Transparency policy," he wrote.

Naatz responded to the secondary request the same day, where Ryan was pointed to the website for several of the requests. Other requests were again granted pending payment of $66.15 as compensation for staff time. Many of those documents also required redactions, Naatz explained.

In an interview, Naatz explained that many requested documents contain program participants' personal information WAC is committed to protecting. "Given the sensitive nature of landowner information we collect, business or trade secrets were entrusted with, and research data generated, we strive to balance confidentiality and transparency," Naatz noted the requests include tens of thousands of pages requiring redactions.

Naatz further explained the litigation has not been formally served to WAC. "I will be in a much better position to offer comment after verifying the authenticity of this filing and conferring with legal counsel, accordingly."

Since Ryan's requests, the WAC Council of Directors has been discussing transparency and public relations protocol. Some of this discussion took place in executive session. Naatz said this is to "allow for attorney-client privilege discussion." At nearly every meeting the council has discussed transparency issues and ways to reorganize communication.

WAC President Wayland "Bud" Gladstone said the council trusts that Naatz will lead WAC positively when navigating the litigation and transparency issues.

"Four days after the first request and one day after the second request, WAC revised its transparency policy," Ryan notes, "In my opinion, the revision made it more difficult for members of the general public to obtain information about WAC's operations."

Ryan further argues, "It is not clear to me why an agency that is nearly completely dependent on funding from a governmental agency for its operations believes it does not need to disclose information related to its operations."

The petitioner is asking the FOIL requests to be honored or to respond fully in writing as to why documents can not be produced.

This is a developing story and we will continue to report on it as new information is produced.