A public statement regarding the Town of Hume, public records, transparency, and accountable government
By David Cartwright, Town of Hume
My main request is for timely, clear access to public records detailing how the Town of Hume handles taxpayer money. I am writing not only to residents but to anyone who values open, accountable government and the public’s right to understand government operations.
A public records request I submitted to the Town of Hume has remained unresolved for months, raising concerns about potential unnecessary legal expenses and broader issues beyond a single records request.
I do not want unnecessary expenses for Hume taxpayers. Despite cooperative efforts, I still have not received a meaningful response from the Town.
To clarify the specifics of my request: On January 20, 2026, I submitted a Freedom of Information Law request to the Town of Hume seeking financial and related municipal records from January 1, 2020, to the present, such as budgets, financial transactions, payroll and compensation records, contracts, debt obligations, communications, audits, and related documents.
From the beginning, I made clear that I was willing to accept records electronically. I stated that records could be provided by email or on digital media, and I specifically asked to be notified in advance if copying or processing costs were expected to exceed $100.
The Town acknowledged the request on January 27, 2026. However, rather than first determining which records were available electronically or providing a meaningful estimate, the Town began photocopying records. On February 6, I was informed that copying had already exceeded $100. I responded that most of the records should be in electronic format, asked what was being copied from hard copy, stated that scanned documents would be fine, and asked to be notified if the cost approached $500.
Despite that, the costs continued to grow. On February 19, I was informed that 3,678 pages had been copied at a cost of $919.50, and that approximately $1,000 in wages had been incurred by the person compiling the records.
I do not object to paying lawful FOIL fees. My concern is that the Town created unnecessary expense by not determining whether records could be provided electronically before incurring costs, or by providing a clear timeline.
Due to these concerns, I filed an administrative appeal. At the March 11 Town Board meeting, the public was told my appeal indicated refusal to pay, which was not accurate.
My appeal did not refuse lawful FOIL fees. It challenged the process: the scale of photocopying, labor costs, the lack of an estimate, and the lack of electronic production considerations.
At that meeting, the Town stated the cost had reached about $2,559.30. The public was told the request could affect Town departments and taxpayers, but not that I had requested electronic records and cost notifications from the start.
Afterward, I submitted a written Request to Correct the Record on March 13, asking for clarification that I had not refused to pay and that my appeal concerned FOIL procedures. To my knowledge, this was not addressed at the next meeting.
Since then, I have continued trying to resolve this out of court, asking whether records are available electronically, what the next steps and timeline are, and whether my appeal will be determined.
Those questions have not been answered.
This silence raises questions about the Town’s motivation. If the issue is confusion about FOIL, it should be possible to clarify and resolve it. But when officials publicly mischaracterize my position, fail to correct the record, and ignore follow-up, residents may wonder what the goal is.
On April 23, I sent another written request to the Supervisor and Town Board by email and certified mail. I again asked for clarification of the format of the records, the Town’s next steps, and an anticipated timeline. I asked for a response by April 28. That certified letter was available for pickup on April 28 and was picked up at the Fillmore Post Office on April 30. I still have not received a response.
At this point, the issue is whether officials will respond to lawful requests, accurately describe public matters, and handle taxpayer-funded processes responsibly.
If the Town does not respond, Article 78 may be the only option to review government action. I prefer a clear response, a lawful production plan, and correction of the public record.
If Town officials and attorneys continue to ignore the issue, Hume taxpayers may end up paying to defend a lawsuit that could be avoided with basic communication and compliance.
This should matter to anyone who believes in open government. Public records laws exist to ensure citizens understand how governments spend money and make decisions. When officials allow costs to rise, mischaracterize requests, and ignore follow-up, it is a problem affecting all.
The issue is not personalities or politics, but transparency, accuracy, and responsible use of taxpayer funds.
The Town can still resolve this constructively by identifying electronic records, producing records efficiently, explaining fees, properly resolving the appeal, and correcting public misunderstandings.
Respectfully,
David J. Cartwright
