About Gwendolyn Craig

Gwen is an award-winning journalist covering environmental policy for the Explorer since January 2020. She also takes photos and videos for the Explorer's magazine and website. She is a current member of the Legislative Correspondents Association of New York. Gwen has worked at various news outlets since 2015. Prior to moving to upstate New York, she worked for a D.C. Metro-area public relations firm, producing digital content for clients including the World Health Organization, the Low Income Investment Fund and Rights and Resources Initiative. She has a master's degree in journalism from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. She has bachelor's degrees in English and journalism, with a concentration in ecology and evolutionary biology, from the University of Connecticut. Gwen is also a part-time figure skating coach. Contact her at (518) 524-2902 or gwen@adirondackexplorer.org. Sign up for Gwen’s newsletter here.

Reader Interactions


  1. Walter Linck says

    Please allow me to clarify that I’m only disappointed with one aspect of the letter. It’s important that top Commission staff have opined that ex-employees DO have the right to comment as I did (despite any two-year or lifetime “bans”) WHEN a State agency does request public comments on an issue. APA had intimidatingly suggested to me – without Commission support – that I did not. So that’s a win for all ex-employees in New York, and a win for the public because of how it might improve transparency and decision making in certain circumstances, and I’m grateful for that. Also, Commission staff obviously put a great deal of thought and effort into their response (it’s a long letter), for which I’m also grateful. I just also think that straightforward and truthful historical information (which admittedly, because of my employment, no or few others besides me may know) should be considered information that may be contributed by ex-employees to benefit decision-making, especially when it’s apparent to many, as in this case, that Agency staff are intentionally withholding critical information from the Board in yet another attempt to lead the Board to a desired decision. (To the judge in the recent Lake George herbicide case, this was quite apparent, and so on that very basis APA lost that case.) Again, I did not release relevant documents, nor did I quote them (I can’t), and no ex-staff or Board members I know who also know of this – or such – information I pointed to in my rejected comments consider any of it to possibly be “confidential.” Current staff have just decided to try make it that. For the Board’s benefit in their decision-making, I merely characterized and noted the simple EXISTENCE of documents in Agency staff’s possession that they are obviously being kept from knowing about – along with their important historical context. I’m still hoping for further clarification from the Commission, and I do think something more will eventually come from them.

  2. Plow Boy says

    All things done by a public employee are public knowledge are they not ? Then how could a former public employee get in trouble by saying something that was public knowledge when he was working. The new governor has the old governor’s same style political show transparency it would appear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *