In March, Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano said the county would slash its contribution to Long Island Bus from $9 million to $4.1 million a year, cut ties with the MTA, and privatize the system by the end of the year. The county and MTA together pay over $30 million of LI Bus’s $140 million annual budget, but Nassau officials have claimed that a privately operated bus system could be run with as little as $2.1 million in county funds annually.

Because of the apparent implausibility of the county’s position, on March 25, TSTC submitted a Freedom of Information Law request for copies of the proposals and related documents received by the county when it solicited bids from private companies to operate Long Island Bus. The County denied that request on March 30, and denied TSTC’s appeal last month.

New York’s Freedom of Information Law is based on the principle that “a free society is maintained when government is responsive and responsible to the public, and when the public is aware of governmental actions.”  Certain instances exist where government should not disclose information, and the law includes specific exceptions to the broad mandate of access to information.  But the default response to a records request is disclosure; denial is allowed only when it is clear that an exception applies.

TSTC’s request was denied based on an exception that states an “agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that . . . if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations.”  In its denial, the county said that disclosing competing proposals prior to finalizing contract negotiations would compromise its ability to negotiate, because parties could alter their proposals based on competing bids and not on actual costs.

But it is difficult to imagine any circumstances where the county’s position would be impaired by disclosure. The parties have already submitted their initial proposals and the time to submit proposals has closed.  A disclosure of the parties’ proposals could easily enhance the county’s position, because public scrutiny could point out waste or defects therein. Moreover, very little chance exists that the parties could amend their proposals for the purpose of underselling each other because the parties are expected to bargain in good faith, and any radical changes would be obvious to the public.

In Tri-State’s view, the county’s position doesn’t meet the narrow requirements of the exception. It doesn’t help Nassau’s image, either. In addition to the county’s confusing privatization math, a recent Newsday report has raised questions about the relationship between the county and its bidders. With Nassau reportedly ready to select a bidder as early as May 15, a little sunshine now would help clear things up.