For example, the Town of Tonawanda Police Department denied a Buffalo News request for its disciplinary records partly out of concern for its officers’ privacy, even though a judge had already ruled that complaints against police, proven or not, could be released, as the state Legislature intended.

The Buffalo Police Department, which has provided some records for individual officers, went seven weeks without acknowledging a News request for its disciplinary files, even though state law mandates a letter of acknowledgement within five business days.

The City of Niagara Falls had given itself an indeterminate amount of time to provide its police disciplinary records by citing “the disruption in operations caused by the novel coronavirus.”

As the nation reeled from the slaying of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis, Minn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in June signed several bills designed to make policing more transparent in New York. Among them was the repeal of a section of the state’s Civil Rights Law known as 50-a. The provision let departments keep secret any record that would reflect on an officer’s suitability for promotion or continued employment.

The provision covered disciplinary records and had been used by municipalities to conceal myriad documents and files, even surveillance tapes that might show an officer’s actions while on duty. The bill Cuomo signed repealed 50-a and then amended the state Freedom of Information Law to allow the release of a range of police disciplinary documents.

With its repeal, news organizations and advocacy groups sent Freedom of Information Law requests to local police agencies seeking long-buried files. In Erie County, the processing of those requests stopped – for a time – as the law underwent a court challenge. The unions representing Buffalo police and firefighters – 50-a had applied to firefighters’ records, too – sought to block the release of pending and unsubstantiated cases against their members. But a State Supreme Court justice, Frank A. Sedita III, ruled against the unions, saying the law allowed the public to see those records, too.

While that should have freed local departments to release records, the documents have flowed only in a trickle. The Buffalo News sent requests for records to the largest departments in Erie and Niagara county weeks ago. But only a few have complied.

The Erie County Sheriff’s Office, for example, released the results of internal investigations into one of its jail sergeants, Robert Dee. The investigators labeled as “unfounded” complaints that Dee had sexual contact with two inmates. More recently, the Sheriff’s Office turned over dozens of pages of records pertaining to other internal probes.

The Amherst Police Department provided documents related to 20 cases, including "letters of counsel" to officers and copies of citizen complaints. The documents include the names of the officers but the complainants' names have been redacted.

In contrast, Cheektowaga’s police department, when asked on Oct. 13 for years’ worth of disciplinary records, responded by saying it would need 20 business days to research whether the records were available and should be released. After 20 business days came and went, the department said it would need more time. Lt. Patrick Chludzinski said the staff was fielding requests from several news organizations.

“We have gotten inundated," he said.

Buffalo: 'Every intention of complying'

Soon after the 50-a repeal, the Buffalo Police Department released to The News an index of disciplinary cases against a small number of individual officers, documents referred to as "disciplinary cards." More recently, the department provided The News with a list of 179 citizen complaints against officers since 2015. But releasing the underlying documents that explain those cases has been another matter.

Capt. Jeff Rinaldo, the chief of staff who handles records requests, said it's not that simple.

"The Buffalo Police Department has every intention of complying, as we have been in releasing personnel records," he said. "Hundreds of those records have been released to date. However, each record requires redaction and review." Personal information, such as home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers in some cases, must be combed from the documents, he explained.

By Rinaldo's count, the department has received more than 900 FOI requests this year.

"We're obviously catching up," he said.

Tonawanda police deny request

The Town of Tonawanda Police Department last month issued what amounted to a blanket denial of a Buffalo News request for several years of disciplinary records, in part because the newspaper did not define what was meant by disciplinary records.

Town officials also said some of the records “may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” a reference to citizen complaints that were deemed unsubstantiated. But those are among the records that Sedita ruled could be released. Tonawanda cited other reasons: Its disciplinary records are not stored electronically, and the police department “is not obligated under FOIL to undertake the herculean effort to respond to your request,” the town told The News.

The Town of Tonawanda Police Club, the union for town police officers, detectives, lieutenants and captains, last month filed a notice of appeal of Sedita's ruling. The union's lawsuit had been jointly decided with the suit filed by the Buffalo unions. 

In Niagara County, the Sheriff's Office has twice extended the time span it says it needs to compile its response. The office has asked for 80 business days so far. 

Niagara Falls cites pandemic 

The City of Niagara Falls was first asked six months ago for the disciplinary records on one police officer. Those documents have not been provided to The News, nor have the documents sought in a more sweeping request since then.

City officials have cited “the disruption in operations caused by the novel coronavirus,” including the governor's executive orders that limited the number of nonessential employees allowed in the workplace. Because of those reductions, the city said, “it is anticipated that your request will be granted or denied within 20 business days of the expiration of the executive orders.”

More recently, the city gave itself a firmer deadline – 20 business days – to grant or deny the request for records but added that because of the pandemic, “response times may be effected.”

In an email, Corporation Counsel Christopher Mazur told the newspaper: “In spite of the continuing financial and pandemic-related hardships that the city is facing, we will continue to make every effort to fulfill those responsibilities and demonstrate our commitment to transparency.”

As of Friday, Niagara Falls had provided none of the requested records.