What the records show: Cortland County\u2019s FOIL paper trail

The setup

This is the story of one man\u2019s attempt to get public records out of Cortland County, New York — a county sheriff\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t 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\u2019s a "constructive denial" — appealable in writing within 30 days to the agency\u2019s 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.

1. The complaint that closed itself — C26-12300

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\u2019s name at her request — about the department\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s own recording forwarded to the DA.

Standing note: replies to Deputy Chief Cute without counsel are flagged — this thread is not touched without Jadi.

2. The fee fight — Cortland City PD\u2019s "four roots" FOIL

Separately, since early August, the City PD\u2019s 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\u2019s Miguel-Carlo Bautista, Assistant Attorney 3, issued an advisory opinion on the City\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.

3. The jail with no written policies — Sheriff\u2019s September 21 determination

On August 30, Barklee FOIL\u2019d the Cortland County Sheriff\u2019s Office for four categories of jail records:

1. The written policy for PHL § 2983 capacity determinations for a detainee with a health care proxy;
2. The written policy for continuity of psychiatric medication for a detainee under court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment or on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic;
3. The written policy for recognizing and honoring a detainee\u2019s health care agent and HIPAA personal representative;
4. The blank/exemplar forms and acceptance criteria.

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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s lane.

4. The $60 search invoice — County Clerk

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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.

5. "No written policies directly outlining Correction Law 508" — Onondaga Sheriff

The Cortland story extends to the county next door, because Brian\u2019s transfer questions cross county lines. In Onondaga\u2019s 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:

• "the Onondaga County Sheriff\u2019s Office does not have any written policies directly outlining Correction Law 508";
• item 8 (the jail medical-provider contracts) "should be directed to the Onondaga County Law Department as the Onondaga County Sheriff\u2019s Office does not maintain the contract between the contracted medical provider";
• medical-provider policies and procedures "are not maintained by the Sheriff\u2019s Office as the medical provider works as a separate entity within the facility";
• item 12 (OMH/hospital CL-508 MOUs): "unable to locate any Correction Law 508 records."

A sheriff\u2019s 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.

6. The extensions that aren\u2019t deadlines — SCOC

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\u2019s constructive denial under § 89(4)(a). The clock is on the agencies, not the requester.

7. Three months of silence — the Rural Adult ACT team

On June 21, 2026, Barklee sent Children\u2019s Home Rural Adult ACT (Cortland) a medication-records request with Brian\u2019s 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\u2019t FOIL — it\u2019s 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.

8. The newest acknowledgment — R000273-092426

On September 24, Cortland County\u2019s 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\u2019t happen within 20 business days of acknowledgment — and this one states a determination date, not a disclosure date, with no reasons attached.

The pattern

Step back and look at the paper trail as a whole:

• Delays without reasons. The county\u2019s R000273 notice and the PD\u2019s "as time allows" both skip the part of FOIL that requires written reasons and a date certain.
• Fees for things the state says are free. Redaction and review billed into a ~$715 estimate — conceded as unchargeable by the agency itself after COOG weighed in. A $217.60 jail medical-records prepayment now before federal OCR. A $60 clerk invoice over a $50 notify threshold.
• "No records" where policies should exist. A jail certifying it maintains no written policies on psychiatric-medication continuity, capacity determinations, or health care proxies. A sheriff\u2019s office with no written policies directly outlining Correction Law 508 and no copies of its own medical contracts. These are certifications of absence — which is exactly the thing the records law is designed to surface.
• Closed doors instead of open records. A complaint closed "as there is no complainant" — a disposition that doesn\u2019t exist in the department\u2019s own GO 211. A meeting with no written summary and no recording. An encrypted "Foil" email from Sgt. Guerrera that sits behind an Office 365 passcode (content unconfirmed as of this writing).
• The threat. A forgery allegation with a possible criminal investigation, leveled at the person filing the complaint — before interviewing him.

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\u2019s the statute\u2019s 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\u2019t exist, and answer complaints with allegations.

What\u2019s still open (as of September 24, 2026)

• C26-12300 complaint appeal — warning deadline given as September 21; standing flag: no reply to Cute without counsel.
• Phone-contact FOIL (filed Sept 14) — acknowledgment due; Riley meeting summarized only by the agency\u2019s "no written summary."
• Four-roots PD FOIL — "as time allows" on everything but the $18.25 portion; ~$715/$357.50 fee dispute live.
• Sheriff\u2019s September 21 no-records determination — Barklee appealed September 21.
• County Clerk $60 invoice — unpaid, disputed.
• Onondaga FR26-0826-08 — partial production; 30-business-day appeal window (~Nov 3).
• Onondaga Law F0043-092226 — production expected by November 5.
• SCOC R000180 (Oct 17) and R000186 (Oct 22) — both on agency extensions.
• OMH complaint on the Rural Adult ACT silence — filed September 24.
• County GovQA R000273-092426 — determination by October 23, 8:00 AM; reasons demanded.
• Mayoral transmittal ask (Sept 22 response date) — no Mayor\u2019s-office inbound through Sept 23.
• Guerrera\u2019s encrypted September 22 "Foil" — content unverified, needs Barklee\u2019s O365 passcode.

The receipts

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.

Not yet published: Sgt. Guerrera\u2019s encrypted September 22 "Foil" message (Office 365 passcode still needed — content unverified). It will be added once the redacted version is ready.

Attribution notes

Legal arguments in Barklee\u2019s September 14 reply and his September 21 appeal are his own. The "no written health policies" research is unproven as to the jail\u2019s actual compliance — what\u2019s proven is the Sheriff\u2019s written certification of "no records." Items not yet verified: the Guerrera encrypted email\u2019s contents, the Mayor\u2019s September 11 letter text, the August 27 appeal-determination attachment text, whether the OCR portal intake was filed, and Barklee\u2019s 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.