Published September 24, 2026 · By Barklee Sanders · Every quote below is verbatim from a primary record. Where something couldn’t be confirmed, it’s marked, not guessed.
Before the request-by-request account, it is worth saying plainly what the normal baseline is — because the paper trail below keeps bumping into agencies that say, in writing, that they do not have things New York law expects them to have.
The Cortland County Sheriff certified that no written jail-health policies were responsive to the request. Under Correction Law § 500-c(1), “the sheriff of each county shall have custody of the county jail” — which makes the sheriff the facility’s chief administrative officer. The State Commission of Correction’s minimum standards then say this, in so many words: “In order to provide adequate medical care for incarcerated persons, the chief administrative officer of each local correctional facility shall develop and implement written policies and procedures” (9 NYCRR § 7010.1(a)), and “adequate health service and medical records shall be maintained” (§ 7010.2(j)). Written policies are not described as best practice here; they are the mechanism of compliance — an affirmative duty. The Commission exists for exactly this oversight: the State Constitution (art. XVII, § 5) charges it with inspecting every detention institution, and Correction Law § 45 gives it the power to set minimum standards — and to close a facility that has not “adhered to or complied with” them.
FOIL requires every agency to promulgate written rules “pertaining to the availability of records and procedures to be followed” (Public Officers Law § 87(1)(b)), and it treats “instructions to staff that affect the public” and “final agency policy or determinations” as presumptively public records — carved out of the inter-agency exemption (§ 87(2)(g)(ii)–(iii)). The State Archives’ retention schedule for local government (LGS-1, issued under Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 57.25) sets minimums that presume these records exist: incident, complaint, and arrest summary logs are permanent; case investigation records — which by definition include the complaint and the investigation report — are kept 5 to 25 years after the case closes (LGS-1 items 1220, 1222). Disposal is lawful only per the schedule. And in 2020, Executive Order 203 required every New York municipality with a police force to convene a public collaborative and submit a governing-body-approved reform plan by April 1, 2021 — or lose state police funding. The modern baseline is written, public, and planned.
FOIL’s fee rules are narrow by design: an agency may recover only the actual-cost items the statute lists — never search time, never administrative costs — and may not charge at all unless at least two hours of employee time is needed, with advance notice of the estimate (§ 87(1)(c)). The courts put the burden on the agency to articulate a “specific and particularized justification” for any fee (Ripp v. Town of Oyster Bay, 140 AD3d 775 (2d Dept 2016)). Against that standard, read the City’s “as time allows” posture and its eventual concession in the chapters below.
Three different things keep appearing in this paper trail, and they are not the same: (1) an agency certifying that no records were responsive — which, under Rattley v. NYPD (96 NY2d 873 (2001)), an agency satisfies simply by averring it ran a diligent search and disclosed what it found; (2) an agency having no written policy on a subject; and (3) the law affirmatively requiringthat policy — as § 7010.1(a) does for jail health care. The first is a statement about a search. The third is a statement about a duty. This page reports the first, quotes the third, and does not treat one as proof of the other. That same care applies to the cross-county comparison: Onondaga’s “no responsive policies or contracts” response is presented in Chapter 5 as exactly what it is — a search result, not a legal conclusion.
This is the story of one man’s attempt to get public records out of Cortland County, New York — a county sheriff’s office, a city police department, a county clerk, a state commission, and a mental-health ACT team — and what the paper trail shows about how those agencies responded. The baseline is New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The Committee on Open Government (COOG) laid out the rules plainly in advisory opinion FOIL-AO-19372 (Feb. 5, 2016): within five business days of a written request, an agency must make the record available, deny in writing, or furnish a written acknowledgment with "a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied." If disclosure can’t happen within twenty business days of the acknowledgment, the agency must state in writing both the reason for the delay and "a date certain within a reasonable period." And: "there is no provision in the statute for repeated extensions." If the agency blows the deadlines, that’s a "constructive denial" — appealable in writing within 30 days to the agency’s head, who must answer within ten business days. (POL § 89(3)(a), § 89(4)(a); COOG FOIL-AO-19372.) Against that standard, here is what actually happened, request by request.
In August 2026, Barklee filed two Personnel/Department complaints with the Cortland City Police Department — one in his own name, one in his mother Catherine Sanders’s name at her request — about the department’s July 30, 2026 response at 14 Calvert Street in Cortland. Agency case number C26-12300. Receipt of both complaints was confirmed in writing on August 18, with a promise of written notification once investigated. On September 14, Deputy Chief Cheyenne Cute wrote back. The mother’s complaint, she said, was closed because "there is no complainant" — the investigating supervisor had spoken to Catherine and reported she "had no knowledge that a complaint had been filed, nor did she wish to file one." Then came the allegation: "I would have to assume you not only forged her signature, but also fabricated her complaint. We will document this and may commence a criminal investigation."
Two other things in that letter: the request for a copy of the complaint pamphlet was denied on the grounds that "you already have it," and Barklee’s own complaint was declared "unfounded, however not yet completed" — a final-sounding finding announced before his interview had even happened. Barklee replied the same day, attaching Catherine’s signed, DocuSeal-audited ratification statement. On the forgery claim: "Under Penal Law § 170.00(4), a written instrument is 'falsely made' only when the ostensible maker 'did not authorize the making or drawing thereof.' She did. There is no forgery, there is no fabrication, and there is no complainant missing from this complaint." On the closure: "'Closed as there is no complainant' is not among them" — the department’s own GO 211 lists the permitted dispositions (Sustained, Unfounded, Exonerated, Not Sustained, Misconduct Not Based on Complaint, Incomplete Investigation). On the pre-completion "unfounded": "A finding of 'unfounded' announced before the complainant has been interviewed, before the witnesses have been deposed, and before the investigation is complete is a conclusion in search of an investigation." The thread kept going. On September 15, Cute wrote that "we will take the direct conversation from a human being as carrying more weight than an Ai generated statement that may or may not have been affirmed, signed, or possibly ever reviewed by a person other than yourself." On September 16, after Lt. Riley met with Barklee: "we have no intention of completing a written summary, nor did we record it, so that is not available to you" — and "I appreciate you providing the recording of the phone call and I will certainly include that with the case and submit to the DA’s office." So: a complaint closed on a phone call, a forgery allegation with a criminal-investigation threat, a pre-interview "unfounded," a refused meeting summary, and the complainant’s own recording forwarded to the DA.
Standing note: replies to Deputy Chief Cute without counsel are flagged — this thread is not touched without Jadi.
Separately, since early August, the City PD’s Records Bureau had four FOIL requests from Barklee: the 2012 and 2019 historical complaint files (Complaint No. 2012-2180, Report No. C19-10406), body-worn-camera and incident records for the July 29–30, 2026 Calvert Street response, and GO 211 records. The City demanded roughly $715 with a $357.50 deposit; Barklee never authorized payment. He did mail check 1003 for the $18.25 historical-records portion. The fee fight went to the state. On September 16, COOG’s Miguel-Carlo Bautista, Assistant Attorney 3, issued an advisory opinion on the City’s fees: agencies "may not charge petitioner a fee for the costs associated with the review or redaction" of records — citing Forsyth v. City of Rochester — and "those tasks could not be the basis for a fee pursuant to FOIL § 87(1)(c)(i)." Agencies may demand prepayment of the full estimated reproduction cost, Bautista wrote, but partial deposits are merely "a sign of a good faith attempt." In the same opinion, he noted he was "currently unable to locate a copy of the City of Cortland’s August 27, 2026 determination of your appeal." Two days later, Deputy Chief Cute conceded the point — in writing: "you are correct in stating that the redaction of any material is not chargeable under FOIL, including body camera redactions after the recent court decision." In the same breath: "none of your requests, other than the first one of historical records, has been fulfilled. I do not have an exact date of when what is available to you will be available, however I can state that I will begin to work on them, as time allows." "As time allows" is not a date certain. The only production to date was the 83-page historical-records packet on September 23 — the $18.25 portion.
On August 30, Barklee FOIL’d the Cortland County Sheriff’s Office for four categories of jail records:
On September 21, Facility Administrator Capt. Nick Lynch issued the determination letter. For all four categories: "This agency maintains no records responsive to this portion of your request." Read that again. A county jail, asked to produce its written policies on psychiatric-medication continuity for detainees, on capacity determinations, on honoring health care proxies — certified that no such records exist. Barklee’s appeal, filed the same day, argues the search was inadequate: 9 NYCRR § 7010.1(a) requires written health policies at the facility. Whether the jail in fact lacks those policies is unverified — but the Sheriff’s office put it in writing that it "maintains no records" responsive to any of the four asks. Related: on September 10, Lynch had answered Barklee’s PHL § 2983(2) capacity-determination request by emailing that a determination "has been mailed" — cross-country paper mail, while Barklee was asking for electronic delivery as an accommodation. And separately, the jail demanded $217.60 prepayment for Brian’s health records — which drew an HHS Office for Civil Rights HIPAA Right of Access complaint on September 9 (Receipt No. 703569). That fee dispute is in counsel’s lane.
On August 19, Barklee asked County Clerk Brooke Kemak for a Judiciary Law § 255 search of CPL 730 fitness-to-proceed orders from 2020 onward, with an explicit instruction: "Email the fee to Barklee before copying if over $50." On September 14, the Clerk’s office sent a 6-page invoice: "Search terms provided: 730, CPL 730, fitness to proceed, order of examination, incapacitated person (January 1, 2020-Present)" — at $5 per two-year window. "Total: $100 *Credit: -$40 Due: $60" — with the footnote "*error in inital calculation by County Clerk." And: "Upon receipt of payment the search will be finalized and results will be provided."
The fee came in over his stated $50 notify-before-copying threshold, the office’s own math needed a $40 correction, and the results sit behind a paywall pending payment. No payment has been made. The dispute is pending his decision.
The Cortland story extends to the county next door, because Brian’s transfer questions cross county lines. In Onondaga’s September 22 determination on FR26-0826-08 (12 numbered items on CL-508 transfer policies and jail health records), Records Access Officer A. Evans produced items 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, and portions of 6 (redactions cited to POL § 87(2)(f)) — then certified:
A sheriff’s office certifying it has no written policies directly outlining the statute that governs transferring incarcerated people between facilities — and no contracts with its own jail medical providers, since those live with the Law Department. The contracts request followed on September 22 to the Law Department (Proactive Health 2020–2022, Wellpath 2023–Aug 2024, CFG Health Systems Sep 2024–present); it was acknowledged as FOIL Case No. F0043-092226 with a thirty-business-day clock expiring November 5, 2026.
The NYS Commission of Correction holds two of the Cortland-jail FOILs. R000180-081926 (filed August 19): on September 17, SCOC said it needs more time "to gather responsive records and determine exemptions," estimating production by October 17. R000186-082526 (filed August 25): on September 22, SCOC cited "unexpected large volume of responsive records" plus exemption review, estimating mailing by October 22 — and warned charges may apply for copies. Under FOIL § 89(3)(a), those are agency-stated dates, not statutory deadlines. If SCOC misses its own dates without written reasons, that’s constructive denial under § 89(4)(a). The clock is on the agencies, not the requester.
On June 21, 2026, Barklee sent Children’s Home Rural Adult ACT (Cortland) a medication-records request with Brian’s signed authorization. Three months. No response. On September 23, he sent a follow-up and a formal grievance (written grievance procedure, 10-business-day written response demand). On September 24, he filed a complaint with the NYS Office of Mental Health Customer Relations: "Your complaint has been successfully submitted" — the form issues no confirmation number. This one isn’t FOIL — it’s a medication-records request to a treatment team that went three months without an answer. The pattern is the same: silence, then silence, then a complaint to the oversight body.
On September 24, Cortland County’s GovQA FOIL center (Records Access Officer Savannah Hempstead) acknowledged a new FOIL, reference R000273-092426: "This agency has determined that it is unable to respond to your request at this time. Accordingly, on or before 10/23/2026 8:00:00 AM, we will grant and/or deny access in whole or in part." No reasons given. None. The statute requires written reasons once disclosure can’t happen within 20 business days of acknowledgment — and this one states a determination date, not a disclosure date, with no reasons attached.
Step back and look at the paper trail as a whole:
None of this is the way a functioning records system behaves. FOIL exists because "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible" — that’s the statute’s own declaration of legislative intent. The Cortland paper trail shows agencies that miss deadlines, dodge reasons, price records behind paywalls, certify that required policies don’t exist, and answer complaints with allegations.
Every quote in this piece traces to a primary record. The released documents are embedded below as the agencies sent them, except that personal family email addresses were redacted. Nothing here has been sent to any agency.
Released document
Deputy Chief Cute closes the mother-filed complaint "as there is no complainant," alleges forgery and a possible criminal investigation, denies the pamphlet copy, and calls Barklee’s own complaint "unfounded, however not yet completed." Personal family email addresses redacted.
Released document
"We have no intention of completing a written summary, nor did we record it." Cute confirms Barklee’s call recording will be "include[d]... with the case and submit[ted] to the DA’s office." Personal family email addresses redacted.
Released document
"You are correct in stating that the redaction of any material is not chargeable under FOIL, including body camera redactions." Same letter: "none of your requests... has been fulfilled... as time allows." Personal family/counsel email addresses redacted.
Released document
Capt. Nick Lynch: "This agency maintains no records responsive to this portion of your request" — for all four jail-health-policy categories. Appeal notice names Victoria J. Monty, County Attorney.
Released document
"The Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office does not have any written policies directly outlining Correction Law 508." Medical contracts referred to the Law Department; provider policies "not maintained" because the provider is "a separate entity."
Released document
"Total: $100 *Credit: -$40 Due: $60" — "*error in inital calculation by County Clerk." Results withheld pending payment. Attached copy of Barklee’s Aug. 19 request with the $50 notify threshold.
Advisory opinion
Miguel-Carlo Bautista, Assistant Attorney 3: agencies "may not charge petitioner a fee for the costs associated with the review or redaction" of records (Forsyth v. City of Rochester). One personal email address redacted.
Advisory opinion
Quoted throughout: written reasons + date certain required; "there is no provision in the statute for repeated extensions"; failure to conform is constructive denial.
Released document
The only production to date: the $18.25 portion (Complaint 2012-2180, Report C19-10406). Privacy-screened: no SSNs, no dates of birth, no third-party PHI found; names are public officers and the witness Brian named in his own sworn statement.
Reference only
Filed Sept. 9, 2026 over the jail’s $217.60 prepayment demand for Brian’s health records. Receipt No. 703569. No agency document available; cited from the filing record.
Not yet published: Sgt. Guerrera’s encrypted September 22 "Foil" message (Office 365 passcode still needed — content unverified). It will be added once the redacted version is ready.
Legal arguments in Barklee’s September 14 reply and his September 21 appeal are his own. The "no written health policies" research is unproven as to the jail’s actual compliance — what’s proven is the Sheriff’s written certification of "no records." Items not yet verified: the Guerrera encrypted email’s contents, the Mayor’s September 11 letter text, the August 27 appeal-determination attachment text, whether the OCR portal intake was filed, and Barklee’s September 24 reply text on the R000273 thread. This piece is published by Barklee Sanders, not by any government agency, and it is not legal advice.