
F.O.I. back on the WEB!
Stamford Boards and Commissions still don't
get it!
E-MAIL, Voicemail Proposed Declaratory
Ruling...NOW ALL WATCHDOGS MERGED IN 2011
2016 bring us to the Office of State Ethics - as merged and re-merged "watch dog" agencies get blurred: http://ctmirror.org/2016/05/19/aresimowicz-challenging-path-as-house-leader-and-union-man/
A Castro Met a Free Press, and the World Watched It Live
NYTIMES
By JIM RUTENBERG
MARCH 27, 2016
"...More subtle — and important — by avoiding the press corps that
covers him daily, Mr. Obama undercuts the traditional journalism that he
says he holds dear, which is already fighting for its survival against
the wave of new media that the president is riding with such agility."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/business/media/victory-lap-and-wink-as-obama-and-raul-castro-meet.html
A.P.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/697e3523003049cdb0847ecf828afd62/us-govt-sets-record-failures-find-files-when-asked
OP-ED | Restore Public
Accountability Over Law Enforcement Agencies
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Mitchell Pearlman | May 11, 2015 7:44am
Last year, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned some 20 years
of Freedom of Information law when it concluded that police
departments need only disclose a bare minimum of arrest
information (name, address, date, time and charges) pending
prosecution. This ruling applies even if other arrest information
is not exempt from public disclosure. The Supreme Court majority
itself, however, recognized that its tortured reading of the law
is in need of legislative clarification.
House Bill 6750 is now wending its way through the General
Assembly. The bill was introduced to reestablish the law that
existed prior to the unfortunate Supreme Court decision. The bill
passed through the legislative committee dealing with Freedom of
Information in good fashion. It was then sent to the Judiciary
Committee where, at the urging of the Chief State’s Attorney, it
was amended to negate the original intent of the bill and, in
essence, would codify into law the Supreme Court’s ruling.
As one who has been working in the field of government
transparency and accountability for over 40 years, I am not
exaggerating one iota when I say that failure to enact House Bill
6750 as originally proposed will be one of the final nails in the
coffin of open government in Connecticut. Ironically, Connecticut
had been considered one of the enlightened pillars of good
government, but unfortunately, of late it has earned a reputation
as one that tolerates corruption and governmental misconduct. This
is a stain on the entire state and an embarrassment to all of us
who call Connecticut home...story in full: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/op-ed_restore_public_accountability_over_law_enforcement_agencies/
Amendment to Arrest
Records Bill Catches Transparency Advocates Off Guard
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Elizabeth Regan | May 1, 2015 10:30am
The
head of the state’s Freedom of Information Commission was
among those surprised to learn that a bill that would make
arrest information available to the public was amended Monday
by the Judiciary Committee.
Colleen Murphy, executive director of the Freedom of
Information Commission, said the following day that she was
unaware of an amendment that narrowed the scope of information
a police department would have to give the public regarding an
arrest. She said she was having trouble obtaining a copy of
the amendment, which state Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, said
was “written on the fly.”
The amendment was still not available on the legislature’s
website four days later on Friday afternoon.
Murphy said she thought the committee was going to approve the
same bill as the General Administration and Elections
Committee, and in the meantime she would negotiate a final
product with Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane. Murphy and
Kane have been trying to find the right balance between the
public’s right to know and prosecutorial and privacy concerns.
Kane said Thursday that the move does not mean negotiations
are over between his office and the Freedom of Information
Commission...story in full: http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/amendment_to_arrest_records_bill_catches_transparency_advocates_off/
NEW ADMINISTRATION:
Please note that F.O.I.A. presentation was made on DECEMBER 15, 2015 but LWV OBSERVER could not attend. Below a report from the most recent previous such presentation.
F.O.I.A. explained by Thomas
Hennick, Public Education Officer, explains and does Q&A, in
Town Hall. Town Attorney, Police , Town Employees, Board/Commission
members attended.
DOES THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (2013 rev.) STILL HELP KEEP
GOVERNMENT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? YOU BET IT DOES!
FORMER FIRST SELECTMAN ON HAND APRIL 20, 2015! AS IS LWV
OF WESTON CONVENER.
Who
is on the Commission? Seven people. And some
basic info on the 40 years this compromise, unanimous, first in
the country F.O.I.A. does or more likely, doesn't do - this is
only for public meetings (what they are, how to conduct them and
report on them), not other things such as ethics, etc. But
Mr. Hennick did offer some help there, too!
Is there a summary that is "pocket sized" available any
more? Is the previous "pocket-sized" document still valid?/Yes, and
here it is online version!
How has the law, FOIA, changed, and has it changed for the
"better" making government more open, since it began (CT was ahead
of its time, we think we remember that, post-Watergate)?/Yes, CT
and Ella Grasso had the first FOIA after Watergate - here is a "matrix"
for summarizing the law as regards meeting notice rules.

COMMENTS:
Attendance from P&Z, Conservation, Historic District, Library
Board, Assessment Appeals, Finance, Government Access Channel 79,
Police Commission, Commission on Aging and press.

Question about subcommittees and reviewing bids. All in all,
a very interesting and informative presentation and useful
discussion.
It took a year so far...
Stonington releases some heavily redacted Habarek texts
The Day
By Joe Wojtas
Published February 19. 2015 4:00AM
Stonington - One year after The Day filed a Freedom of Information
request, the town has released a heavily redacted transcript of
the approximately 11,600 text messages that then-First Selectman
Ed Haberek sent and received from his town-issued BlackBerry from
January through August 2012.
Town Attorney Thomas Londregan said the town blacked out all but
518 of the messages because they are not public records under
state law but Haberek's private communications. He pointed to a
state law that defines public records as "relating to the conduct
of the public's business." The law also allows the redaction of
some public records involving labor and property negotiation,
personnel matters and security issues...
The 2010 town policy for phones and computers in effect for 2011
and 2012 states that "e-mail and Internet access is provided for
Town of Stonington business use only." The policy does not address
text messaging specifically as that medium had not yet become as
pervasive a means of communication as it is today.
The policy states that use of email and the Internet "for informal
and/or personal purposes is permissible only within reasonable
limits."
All email and Internet records are considered town records and
"those who have personal confidential matters to communicate
should, to assure privacy, not use Town computers or equipment,
including fax machines," according to the policy.
"Additionally, Town of Stonington e-mail, Internet records are
subject to disclosure to law enforcement or government officials
or to other third parties through subpoena or other processes,"
states the policy. "Consequently, you should always ensure that
the business information contained in these messages is accurate,
appropriate and lawful."
Story in full:
http://www.theday.com/local/20150219/stonington-releases-some-heavily-redacted-habarek-texts
Use of social media in
police protection and law enforcement:
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20141023/NEWS03/141029514
Greenwich boards prepare minutes to
secret meeting
Robert
Marchant, Greenwich TIME
Updated 10:43 pm, Friday, January 2, 2015
Town officials are in the process of approving the minutes of an
illegal, closed-door meeting attended by various boards that
looked at ways to clean up contaminated soil at Greenwich High
School two years ago.
The Board of Selectmen recently approved the minutes of the
meeting, and the Board of Estimate and Taxation is planning to
approve its minutes of the 2013 meeting later this month. The
Board of Education is also in the process of reviewing and
approving minutes.
The BET held the special meeting Feb. 26, 2013, and asked
members of the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education to
attend. According to the agenda, the purpose of the meeting was
to discuss a "pending claim" related to the remediation of the
high school grounds.
The state's Freedom of Information law allows litigation to be
discussed in executive session behind closed doors...story in
full: http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Greenwich-boards-prepare-minutes-to-secret-meeting-5991059.php#photo-7343012
Judge: Greenwich officials' meeting was illegal
Greenwich TIME
By Justin Pottle
Published 8:14 pm, Friday, October 31, 2014
A judge has upheld the state Freedom of Information Commission's
ruling that a closed-door meeting Greenwich officials held to
discuss ground contamination was illegal.
The judge on Thursday dismissed the town's appeal of that ruling
-- rejecting its argument that members of three boards were
legally justified meeting in private because they were discussing
a legal claim. He upheld the FOI Commission's finding that
officials instead discussed and reached consensus on how best to
clean up contaminated soil at Greenwich High School -- before
remediation options were presented to the public...story in full:
http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Judge-Greenwich-officials-meeting-was-illegal-5862253.php
FOI Advocate: Malloy Administration Should Push Charter Group On
Public Disclosure
FUSE, Jumoke Academy, Lately Have Been Consulting
Lawyer Who Is Malloy Pal And Democratic Fundraiser
Hartford Courant
Jon Lender, Government Watch
9:53 PM EDT, July 12, 2014
The president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information
is blasting an embattled Hartford charter school group for
refusing to release information to the public about its
taxpayer-funded operations – adding that the Malloy administration
should push the group harder to obey FOI laws.
Officials in the Malloy administration have said that they are not
sure how the FOI laws apply to charter school organizations and
that they need to study the issue further. But Jim Smith, head of
the nonprofit group that advocates for laws protecting the
public's right to know, is unequivocal in his belief that the laws
do apply.
"Charter schools are certainly one solution of the problems in
education in Connecticut and in America. There are things in
education that are properly private, like academic records," Smith
said. "But if the charter schools [receive]... public moneys, then
charter school officials who refuse to divulge information are
breaking the Freedom of Information law."
Smith was referring, in an interview Friday, to the charter
management group FUSE, as well as the Jumoke Academy charter
schools in Hartford that FUSE managed.
Both organizations have failed to provide information requested by
The Courant during recent weeks of turmoil including the
resignation of FUSE's CEO, Michael Sharpe, after it was disclosed
that he served time in federal prison and falsely claimed to have
a doctorate. The state has provided $53 million to the charter
operation since the 1997 founding of Jumoke, and the formation of
FUSE as its management unit in more recent years.
The Courant's requests for information from Jumoke and FUSE would
typically have been complied with by a normal superintendent of
schools' office in a town or a city under the section of state
statutes known as the Freedom of Information Act.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
How the CT Legislature works: Or
the
literary
alternative...or back again? Or
the Legislature supported by the State
Supreme Court?
FOI
Task Force Bill Swings Back Towards Openness
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Hugh
McQuaid
| Mar 24, 2014 6:30pm
The
Government
Administration and Elections Committee stripped restrictions on
public
access to 911 recordings from a bill before voting on the
controversial
proposal Monday.
The
committee
leaned heavily in favor of public access when it adopted new
language
on a bill that sought to find compromise between open government
and
crime victims’ privacy.
The bill had
been written to create a special class of public records, which
the
public could inspect but not copy. The language placed the burden
of
releasing those records on the person requesting the documents. A
task
force that proposed the recommendations in the bill called for
recordings of 911 emergency calls and pictures depicting the
bodies of
homicide victims be included in this class of records.
Lawmakers
removed language regarding 911 recordings from the bill, meaning
the
public will retain access to them. They preserved the
look-but-don’t-copy policy for pictures depicting homicide victims
but
flipped the burden of proof so it falls on the government to
explain
why they should not be released.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
FEB.
23, 2014 OP-ED FROM CTNEWSJUNKIE HERE
Task Force Wants Copying
Certain
Records To Be A Crime
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 24, 2014 5:13pm
An early draft of a report from a task force weighing privacy
against
public disclosure would have recommended making it a felony to
copy
certain law enforcement records without permission.
That language was softened by the time the panel approved its
final
report during Friday’s meeting. The report reaffirms
recommendations
approved by the group last month that would change the way the
public
accesses some law enforcement records.
The policies endorsed by a majority of the task force would permit
a
member of the public to view certain law enforcement records
pertaining
to homicides, but would place the burden of justifying the public
release of those documents on the member of the public.
Previously,
government agencies had the burden of explaining why they did not
want
to release a record.
The new standard would apply to photographs and videos depicting
homicide victims as well as recordings of 911 calls and other
police
communications describing their bodies. The group also approved a
recommendation that the legislature passes a law making it a crime
to
copy these records without permission.
But according to Colleen Murphy, director of the Freedom of
Information
Commission, an early draft of the report included language that
would
have made that crime a Class D felony. Murphy said the group never
approved such language and it was removed from subsequent drafts
of the
report. But Murphy and FOI advocate Jim Smith reacted to the
provision
in a section of the report’s appendix dedicated to statements from
members of the group.
In her statement, Murphy pointed out that a Class D felony
charge is “equivalent to strangulation, promoting prostitution and
robbery, among other crimes, punishable by up to five years in
prison.”
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
Bill Drafted In Secret Would Block
Release
Of Some Newtown Massacre Records
The
Hartford Courant
By JON
LENDER,
EDMUND H. MAHONY and DAVE ALTIMARI, jlender@courant.com
10:18 PM EDT, May 21, 2013
The staffs of the state's top prosecutor and the governor's office
have
been working in secret with General Assembly leaders on
legislation to
withhold records related to the police investigation into the Dec.
14
Newtown elementary school massacre — including victims' photos,
tapes
of 911 calls, and possibly more.
The
behind-the-scenes legislative effort came to light Tuesday when
The
Courant obtained a copy of an email by a top assistant to Chief
State's
Attorney Kevin Kane, Timothy J. Sugrue. Sugrue, an assistant
state's
attorney, discussed options considered so far, including blocking
release of statements "made by a minor."
"There is
complete agreement regarding photos etc., and audio tapes,
although the
act may allow the disclosure of audio transcripts," Sugrue wrote
to
Kane, two other Kane subordinates and to Danbury State's Attorney
Stephen Sedensky, who is directing the investigation of the
killings.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]
OP-ED | News on the
FOI Front Looks Bleak
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by Terry D.
Cowgill | May 17, 2013 5:30am
For
gadflies,
watchdogs, and journalists in the Nutmeg State, the outlook for
open
access to government information just gets grimmer by the month.
With
few exceptions, lawmakers and other state officials are trying
their
best to make it harder for us to take a look at what they’re up
to.
The reasons
for
the desire for more secrecy vary, but they range from a genuine
desire
for less transparency, to saving money, to pure emotion in the
wake of
a tragedy. But almost all these measures have one thing in common:
they’re bad ideas whose implementation would protect the well
connected
at the expense of the people.
A report
last
week by The Courant’s Jon Lender reveals a disturbing pattern.
Various
pieces of legislation are pending in the General Assembly that
would
withhold the home addresses of certain state employees, bar access
to
records of those seeking pardons, and force taxpayers to pay a fee
simply for the privilege of viewing a police report.
One of the
most
troubling is a bill sponsored by Newtown Republican state Rep.
Mitch
Bolinsky, who proposed a one-paragraph bill that would restrict
public
access to the death certificates of minors until six months after
the
death. Why? Because Bolinsky got a call from the town clerk, who
felt
uncomfortable sharing death certificates with reporters only three
days
after 20 children and six adults were murdered at Sandy Hook
Elementary
School.
As should be
obvious to everyone, perhaps the worst time to change the law is
when
emotions get the best of our public officials. Harken back to two
years
ago when then-Sen. Edith Prague, a principled and longtime
opponent of
the death penalty, changed her mind after meeting with Dr. William
Petit, the sole survivor of a violent and deadly home invasion in
Cheshire four years ago.
If anything,
the Newtown massacre was even more catastrophic than what happened
in
Cheshire. So the urge to proceed on emotion should be resisted
more
firmly. A couple of mass murders rightly stimulate discussion on
gun
control but they should not be cause for restricting public access
to
public records.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
OP-ED
| Superagency Must Be Able To Maintain Independence
CTNEWSJUNKIE
by James H.
Smith | Nov 27, 2012 10:52am
If you care
about ethics in government, honest elections, or the right to know
what
your government is doing, then the mess at the Office of
Governmental
Accountability should be cause for alarm. At best, they’re
wrestling
with an octopus. At worst, the essential independence of our state
watchdog agencies will be crippled. It’s nearly laughable if it
weren’t
such a shame.
The governor
and the legislature created this superagency in 2011 in the name
of
efficiency. The nine agencies include the State Elections
Enforcement
Commission, the Office of State Ethics, and the Freedom of
Information
Commission.
Gov. Dan
Malloy
chose David Guay to be the “executive administrator,” of the
superagency. Mr. Guay, who prefers to be the boss rather than
merely
the administrator, is refusing to meet with the directors of the
nine
agencies that comprise the Government Accountability Commission,
which
has the power to fire him. He maintains the commission doesn’t
have the
power to evaluate his performance, and the governor’s chief
counsel
appears to back him up on that.
But rather
than
fire him at this time, the commission prefers to “identify areas
that
need improvement and resolve them.” He is commended in some areas
for
his work in the first year of this cobbled-together agency, but he
is
evaluated critically in key areas of management.
“It is of
grave
concern to the GAC that (Guay) is unwilling to meet to discuss the
status of the consolidation or to collaborate on ways to make it a
success as he enters his second year of employment,” states a
draft of
his evaluation.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
Change of plans. Meetings creating
teacher
evaluations will be public.
Jacqueline
Rabe
Thomas, CT MIRROR
May 23, 2012
After
holding
numerous meetings behind closed doors to finalize details
on how teachers and principals will be graded, the State
Department of
Education has said the public and the media can attend the
sessions
from now on.
"Something
is
different at this meeting. At this meeting -- in the
interest of transparency -- the state department has invited the
press
to join us," is how Elizabeth Shaw, the state's consultant with
Education First, started Wednesday's "working group" meeting.
This
decision
to conduct open meetings comes one day after the
Connecticut Mirror reported that several private meetings have
taken
place without public notice and that 10 more closed sessions had
been
scheduled.
It also
follows
a contentious Performance Evaluation Advisory Council
meeting last week, the first public meeting in three months, where
members butted heads on how much weight to give students'
standardized
test results in teacher evaluations.
The council
had
planned to reconvene this past Monday to start to hash
out issues raised during the meeting, but Monday's session was
cancelled, and the closed "working group" meetings scheduled
instead.
The next public meeting had not been scheduled until June 21, nine
days
before the panel's June 30 deadline. The state Board of Education
is
expected to sign off on the evaluations shortly after that.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Teacher evaluation panel moves its
work behind closed doors
CT MIRROR
Jacqueline Rabe Thomas and Keith M. Phaneuf
May 22, 2012
After a contentious public meeting last week on developing a
new
teacher and principal evaluation system, the state
Department of
Education has closed its meetings on the topic to the public
and the
media.
Instead, a series of private "working group" meetings is
scheduled to
take place in the weeks before the panel's June 30 deadline
to create a
model process on evaluation under the new education reform
law. The
next public meeting is not until June 21, nine days before
the panel is
required to finish their work. The state Board of Education
is expected
to sign off on the evaluations shortly after that.
Asked if these "working group" meetings will be open to the
public,
Education Commissioner Stefan Pryor last week referred all
questions to
a State Department of Education spokesman, who declined to
give
notification of these meetings nor copies of its minutes.
At its first public meeting in three months, members of the
Performance
Evaluation Advisory Council last week butted heads on how
much weight
students' standardized test results should have when their
teachers are
evaluated.
The council had planned to reconvene Monday to begin to hash
out a list
of issues raised during the meeting, including the
standardized tests
issue and how many times teachers should be observed during
the school
year.
The education department cancelled Monday's meeting,
however, and
scheduled 10 private "working group" meetings instead,
including one
this morning on principal evaluations. The other groups set
to meet in
closed sessions this week include Implementation, Teacher
Evaluation,
Pupil Services and Observation.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Complaint
filed over
reform consultant hiring
Ken Dixon,
CT
POST
Updated
09:31
p.m., Friday, April 27, 2012
HARTFORD --
The
head of a nonprofit consumer watchdog on Friday filed a
whistleblower
complaint charging that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and state Education
Commissioner Stefan Pryor violated state law in the hiring of
school
reform consultants in January.
Tom Swan,
executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, asked
the
state's auditors of Public Accounts to investigate Pryor and
Malloy's
use of a little-known agency, the State Education Resource Center,
to
avoid state contracting rules in hiring two consultants for
$269,000.
In reaction,
Andrew J. McDonald, Malloy's legal counsel, said Friday the charge
against the governor is "reckless" and "devoid of any evidence."
Robert M.
Ward,
one of the two state auditors, said Friday that state rules
requiring
the protection of anonymity in whistleblower limited him to only
confirming a complaint was filed.
Swan, a
well-known state activist, said he submitted the accusation after
reviewing state Department of Education e-mails and contracts,
copies
of which he was given under the state's Freedom of Information
Act.
The e-mails,
some of which were obtained by Hearst Connecticut Newspapers,
indicate
Education First Inc., of Seattle, and Leeds Global Partners, of
New
York, were both acting as consultants for Pryor even before their
contracts were signed earlier this year.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT POST website]
Bill to allow public boards
more
discretion to meet privately hits a
snag
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
March 14, 2012
A proposal to give public agencies greater discretion to
meet in closed
sessions with their attorneys has fallen into political
limbo at the
Capitol. The legislature's Government Administration
and
Elections Committee, which originally raised the bill and
scheduled a
public hearing on the measure, suspended the latter and may
not
reschedule it in the face of objections from right-to-know
advocates.
"I am not committed to going forward with a public hearing
right now,"
said Rep. Russell Morin, D-Wethersfield, co-chairman of the
GAE
committee. "There are very limited things you can go into
executive
session for right now and we're always cautious about
(changing) that."
The measure, which originally was slated for a public
hearing on March
12, and later was considered to be heard next week, had been
raised at
the request of Attorney General George Jepsen's office,
which declined
comment late Wednesday afternoon. But it quickly drew
opposition
from the state Freedom of Information Commission, as well as
from the
Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information. The latter is
a
coalition of nearly three dozen newspapers, television and
radio
stations and other news media organizations.
"There's already too much secrecy in state and local
government and
we're trying to prevent more," said CCFOI President Jim
Smith, a
veteran Connecticut newspaper editor who retired last year
as executive
editor of the Bristol Press and the New Britain Herald.
Smith said his group fears the bill would open the door to
potential
abuse of closed-door talks by public agencies. "They could
go into
executive session and discuss anything and no one would
know," he said.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
House
passes emergency FOI fix
Keith M.
Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
February 23,
2012
The House of
Representatives adopted an emergency fix Thursday to the state's
right-to-know law that could break a legal logjam blocking the
release
of voter lists and other omnibus public registries.
The bill,
which
passed 120-11 and now heads to the Senate, would allow public
agencies
to release major voter and property databases without the arduous
task
of identifying and redacting addresses of police officers, prison
guards and other "protected" public employees.
But critics
argued that the measure, adopted without a public hearing, is
technically flawed, and offers little security to those employees
hoping to keep their personal information private.
And the head
of
Connecticut's right-to-know agency warned Thursday that another
legislative fix still might be needed.
"This is a
whole lot better and helps the towns a whole lot more than what
they
are dealing with now," said Rep. Russell Morin, D-Wethersfield,
co-chairman of the Government Administration and Elections
Committee.
Official
record-keepers at the state and municipal levels have been at odds
since last June when the state Supreme Court ruled that a statute
barring disclosure of home addresses of protected employees
applied to
the motor vehicle registration lists that communities use to
prepare
property tax bills.
Based on
that
ruling, legislators said it became clear that the statute also
would
apply to other common governmental databases, including voter
registration lists.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
UNDER THEN MAYOR NOW
GOVERNOR MALLOY, THIS
TYPE OF POLICY NOTHING
NEW FOR STAMFORD!
Change of course on Gabriele FOI complaint
Kate King, Stamford ADVOCATE
Updated 10:15 p.m., Wednesday, February 22, 2012
STAMFORD -- A state Freedom of Information Commission
hearing officer
has changed course on a complaint city Rep. Sal
Gabriele, R-16, lodged
against the Board of Representatives.
The officer, Victor Perpetua, appeared to side with
Gabriele at a Jan.
30 commission hearing, which was held to discuss the
city
representative's allegations that eight members of the
board's
leadership violated the Freedom of Information Act by
discussing,
signing and sending a letter related to city business
without holding a
public meeting.
But in his proposed decision, which both parties
received earlier this
week, Perpetua wrote that the letter did not constitute
a proceeding of
the board and recommended dismissal of Gabriele's
complaint.
"At the hearing, the hearing officer indicated on the
record that he
believed that those actions constituted a proceeding of
the respondent
board," Perpetua wrote in his finding, dated Feb. 2.
"However, upon
review of the relevant case law, the hearing officer's
conclusion was
premature, and regrettably erroneous."
Perpetua's proposed decision represents an abrupt
reversal from the
January hearing in Hartford, during which he seemed so
sure of his
support for Gabriele's position that he did not accept
evidence on the
complaint and denied a request from Board of
Representatives President
Randy Skigen and Deputy Minority Leader Harry Day to
testify.
Skigen and Day did submit a 91-page response to the
commission on Feb.
8, but it is unclear if the information played a factor
in Perpetua's
proposed finding, which is dated six days earlier.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Stamford ADVOCATE website]
Gabriele
poised to win FOI complaint - previously in Stamford
Open government: Gabriele poised to win FOI complaint;
reps have 'grave
concerns'
Kate King, Staff Writer, Stamford ADVOCATE
Updated 10:49 p.m., Monday, January 30, 2012
HARTFORD -- City Rep. Sal Gabriele, R-16, won a preliminary
victory
Monday in a Freedom of Information complaint lodged against
the Board
of Representatives, the outcome of which could have
far-reaching
effects within city government.
Gabriele and his Fairfield-based lawyer, Joe Sargent,
appeared before
the state Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford
Monday morning
for a hearing on Gabriele's complaint, which alleged eight
members of
the board's leadership violated the Freedom of Information
Act by
discussing, signing and sending a letter related to city
business
without holding a public meeting. Board of
Representatives
President
Randy Skigen and Deputy Minority Leaders Harry Day and Mary
Fedeli also
attended the hearing, where they were represented by
Stamford attorney
Michael Toma.
Commission hearing officer Victor Perpetua disagreed with
Toma's
defense, which asserted the letter in question was not a
government
proceeding and the board's eight-member leadership did not
constitute a
government body subject to FOI laws. Perpetua did not
accept
evidence
on the complaint and denied a request from Skigen and Day to
testify at
the hearing.
"Not to minimize anybody's position, but it just seems
obvious that a
group of leadership individuals ... acted as a group, as
some type of
subset, either on behalf of or perhaps as a sub-committee,"
Perpetua
said. "They didn't do it in their personal capacities.
"I'm also going to rule, just sitting here now, that the
discussion of
and signing and delivery of the letter constituted a
proceeding for the
purpose of the (Freedom of Information) Act."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Stamford ADVOCATE website]
And
they did, ultimately withdrawing offer to Republican.
Legislators
urge SEEC to reject Giuliano as new director
Keith M. Phaneuf and Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 13, 2012
The co-chairmen of the legislature's Government
Administration and
Elections Committee called Friday afternoon for the
state's elections
watchdog panel to reconsider its plans to name former
Middletown Mayor
Sebastian Giuliano as its new executive director.
Rep. Russell Morin, D-Wethersfield, and Sen. Gayle
Slossberg,
D-Milford, told the State Elections Enforcement
Commission by letter
that Giuliano does not meet the basic qualification
required of
commissioners: that he be at least three years removed
from partisan
politics.
Giuliano, a Republican, served three terms as
Middletown's mayor
through 2011. He lost his bid for a fourth term last
November, defeated
by Democrat Dan Drew. The commission announced Thursday
that it planned
to name Giuliano to the executive director's post at a
meeting
Wednesday.
"I strongly believe the SEEC must first and foremost be
an independent
watchdog of Connecticut's elections policies, procedures
and processes,
without even a hint of partisanship, and a chief elected
official, of
any party and any municipality, who served in office and
ran for
re-election as recently as this nominee, compromises
that desire for
irrefutable nonpartisanship," Slossberg said.
"Individual SEEC commissioners must be removed from
partisan politics
for three full years before they are eligible to serve;
I think the
same standard should be applied to the agency's staff
positions as
well," she said.
"There is no place for partisan politics at Elections
Enforcement,"
Morin said. "In essence, the commissioners are naming an
executive
director whose feet are still tired from walking the
campaign trail.
This is a job that rises above party politics -- even
the slightest
hint of partisanship would contaminate Election
Enforcement's ability
to carry out its mission."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
See other
article.
Former Middletown
mayor to oversee elections enforcement
Keith M.
Phaneuf and
Mark Pazniokas, CT MIRROR
January 12,
2012
For the
first
time, the state's elections watchdog agency has chosen a
politician and
an outsider to lead its operations, tapping Sebastian N. Giuliano,
a
Republican fresh off a losing re-election campaign for mayor of
Middletown.
The State
Elections Enforcement Commission named Giuliano on Thursday to
become
its new executive director and general counsel, giving the agency
its
first director with a partisan past and experience as a candidate.
He
also would be the first director in decades who was not a career
state
employee.
Giuliano had
served six years as Middletown's chief executive until losing his
bid
for a fourth term in November to Democrat Dan Drew, who was
strongly
backed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Giuliano succeeds Albert P.
Lenge, who
retired in November.
"In light of
the challenges we face in the area of public campaign financing
and
agency consolidation issues, I have every confidence that
Sebastian
Giuliano possesses the knowledge and experience to lead the
commission," said Stephen F. Cashman, the commission's chairman.
"We
believe he is the right guy for the job."
Cashman said
Giuliano stood out in a crowded field of candidates, but he may
need to
overcome some skepticism among Democratic proponents of public
financing in the legislature.
The state's
public financiing program was opposed by most Republicans,
including
the former party chairman who ran Giuliano's first successful
campaign
for mayor, Chris Healy.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Watchdog agencies
spared as Malloy nails down budget cuts
Keith M.
Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
September 6,
2011
Gov. Dannel
P.
Malloy's administration already has secured one-fifth of this
year's
savings called for in the union concession deal--and apparently
won't
be trying to take any more funding from Connecticut's three chief
watchdog agencies.
Office of
Policy and Management Secretary Benjamin Barnes reported Tuesday
that
$135 million was withheld from agencies' budget allotments for
July
through September--the first quarter of fiscal 2011-12--reflecting
savings tied to layoffs, a wage freeze, retirements, benefit
restrictions, facility closings and schedule reductions, and other
cost-saving initiatives.
Barnes,
Malloy's budget director, also said that while his office hadn't
completed its review of all vacant positions funded in this year's
budget, he anticipates that the Freedom of Information and State
Election Enforcement commissions, as well as the Office of State
Ethics, would be allowed to fill four budgeted posts that the
administration effectively had frozen since July 1.
And when the
elections panel's executive director, Albert Lenge, retires at
month's
end, the commission also likely would be allowed to fill his post,
Barnes added.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
ACLU questions use of 'cell phone
dragnets'
CT
POST
Ken Dixon,
Staff Writer
Updated
12:09
a.m., Thursday, August 4, 2011
HARTFORD --
Six
cities across the state, plus the Connecticut State
Police, were the targets Wednesday of an effort to gauge the
extent
that law enforcement may be using cellphone locations to invade
privacy.
The American
Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut joined other ACLU
offices in a nationwide campaign to determine whether police are
improperly tracking people using their cellphone data. It's one of
the
first efforts at protecting digital privacy.
Freedom of
Information Act requests were sent to the state police and
local police departments of Danbury, Waterbury, New Haven,
Willimantic,
New London and Berlin in what could be the start of a multiyear
effort
to determine whether privacy rights have been violated.
Except for
Berlin, where a warrantless federal tracking campaign occurred in
2008,
the cities were selected geographically.
The ACLU
asked
whether law enforcement officials show probable cause
and obtain warrants from judges before obtaining cellphone
location
information; and how often they seek such information.
In addition,
the ACLU requested budget totals on the cost of local
cellphone tracking; and policies and procedures for gathering
location
data.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT POST website]
OP-ED | Problems Belie CT’s Strong
FOI
Laws
CT
NEWS
JUNKIE
by
Terry
Cowgill | Jul 29, 2011 9:58am
Having
worked
for five years as a journalist in New York, a state with
relatively weak freedom-of-information laws, I have long bragged
about
living in Connecticut, where our Freedom of Information Commission
actually has some teeth.
In New York,
if
I was barred unlawfully from a meeting or denied access
to public records, all I could really do was either file an FOI
request
for the materials or call the estimable Bob Freeman, who still
heads
the state’s Committee on Open Government. I could get a quote or
two
from Freeman about the injustice of it all and then publish a
story to
that effect. Of course, I could also file a lawsuit against the
municipality or school district, but that required time and
resources
my tiny newspaper company simply did not have.
When I
started
working as journalist in the Nutmeg state, I breathed a
sigh of relief. Reporters and their publishers could file formal
complaints to the FOIC and often they were granted hearings to air
their grievances. The commission could file declaratory rulings,
grant
relief and, if necessary, refer matters to the courts for further
review and possible action.
But, as you
might expect, even in a state that respects freedom of
information and open government, there are still parties that try
mightily to avoid compliance or erect unreasonable barriers to the
public’s right to know. Two examples caught my eye this month.
A Rocky Hill
gadfly named Ed Peruta walked into his local state police
barracks and asked to see all accident reports prepared by two
state
troopers. Police told Peruta he would have to pay a $16
“inspection
fee” per report for the 400 or so he wanted to see. Mind you, all
Peruta wanted to do was review the documents, not have them
photocopied
or scanned. Just for the privilege of eyeballing the reports,
Peruta
was told he’d have to pony up $6,352.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CTNEWSJUNKIE website]
Retired FOI
czar
ready to lead unified watchdog group for free
Keith M. Phaneuf, CT MIRROR
July 29, 2011
The
leader of Connecticut's right-to-know agency for three decades --
and
who referred to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's plan to merge nine
watchdog
groups "a disaster" is one of five finalists to head the unified
Office
of Governmental Accountability.
And Mitchell
W.
Pearlman, who retired in 2005 after 30 years with the Freedom of
Information Commission and 28 years as its executive director and
general counsel, also pledged to forfeit his salary if given the
job.
Pearlman was
scheduled to be interviewed later Friday by the division heads
within
the new Office of Governmental Accountability. That panel must
recommend at least three finalists by the end of business Monday
to
Malloy, but can submit more. The governor must appoint a director
from
that pool of candidates.
The OGA
division heads began public interviews Friday, with more scheduled
for
Monday. According to panel's personnel search committee report,
the
group is looking primarily from within Connecticut government for
a new
director to oversee business and administrative functions.
"Given
what's
happening, I thought it would be unfair for me to collect a
salary,"
Pearlman, a Glastonbury lawyer, said, adding that the only benefit
he
would accept is coverage against on-the-job injuries under
workers'
compensation system. "If I can save a job or two, that's good."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the CT MIRROR website]
Compromise sought on
postings
New Haven
Register
Associated
Press
Sunday,
March
15, 2009 7:17 AM EDT
HARTFORD —
When
it was approved last year, a law requiring Connecticut
municipalities
to quickly post their meeting minutes online was hailed by
supporters
as significantly boosting public access to information.
In the five
months since it went into effect, however, several small towns
have
suspended their Web sites instead and others are considering it,
all
saying they lack the technology or money to comply with the new
posting
rules. Now, several compromises are being considered at the
General Assembly to balance the law’s original intent with the
towns’
concerns about being fined for violating the state Freedom of
Information Act.
“Some of the
towns aren’t used to posting things regularly, so we do recognize
this
could be a new challenge,” said state Rep. James Spallone,
D-Essex.
“Maybe with a little time to figure out how to do it, the towns
may
find that it’s easier than they initially thought it would be.”
The law,
which
went into effect Oct. 1, requires municipalities to post agendas
on
their Web sites at least 24 hours before all public meetings and
their
minutes within a week afterward. Several town leaders,
especially
in small communities, complained to their legislators that they
rely on
part-time or volunteer Webmasters. Others said complying with the
law
would mean paying more to contractors for the extra work, equating
to
an unfunded state mandate.
Failure to
comply could result in complaints to the state Freedom of
Information
Commission. At least nine towns have suspended their Web sites
since
October rather than risk facing an FOI complaint for violating the
new
rules. The legislature’s committee on government
administration
and elections, which Spallone co-chairs, recently endorsed a bill
intended to offer some middle ground.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the NEW HAVEN REGISTER website]
League
of Women Voters of Norwalk hosts FOI forum
By ROBERT KOCH,
Hour
Staff Writer
Posted on
12/04/2008
Residents
learned details of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, and
had
an opportunity to ask questions, during an educational forum
hosted by
The League of Women Voters of Norwalk at City Hall on Thursday
night.
A question
by
Tara Forschino, a Fox Run Elementary School PTO member, bore
resemblance to a recent FOI request filed by parents of special
needs
children within the larger school district.
"If there
is,
whether it be, say a teacher or law enforcement, and there are
background checks done," Forschino said. "If that information is
in
someone's file, and someone wants to evaluate just that specific
information out of someone's personnel file, where would that
fall?"
Tom Hennick,
public education officer for the Connecticut Freedom of
Information
Commission and guest speaker at the forum, had no simple answer
for
people looking for a blanket explanation.
"It really
matters on what's in there," Hennick said. "But if you go ask for
a
background check on a teacher you believe is doing something
improper,
that would sort of, in my mind, spill it toward a matter of public
concern and make sure it's released.
"But it
really
is a case-by-case basis," Hennick added.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the THE HOUR (Norwalk, CT) website]
Folks
take their zoning seriously in lower Fairfield County...not
exactly an
FOI matter, but one that crosses the lines--is it ethics, FOI or
"open
government" at stake?
Steps taken for safety at
Westport meetings
Westport
News
By Don Casciato
Article
Launched: 03/21/2008 02:51:14 PM EDT
With litte
fanfare, Westport leaders are making an effort to provide more
safety
at town meetings.
The decision
was
made after a resident created a
disturbance at a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting on Feb. 26.
Robert Adler, of Owenoke Park, confronted ZBA members about the
construction of a dormer at his home. Adler claimed his
application
five years earlier was similar but was rejected.
Prior to the
start
of Wednesday's ZBA meeting, an
executive session was held with First Selectman Gordon Joseloff
and
Westport Police Chief Al Fiore in attendance.
"We are
constantly
evaluating," said Joseloff in a
telephone interview yesterday morning when asked about the
session.
"Briefly, we talked about what has been done and what procedures
to use
in the future."
As it stands
now,
there will be more of a police
presence at meetings in town -- especially at night. Uniformed
officers
will be "popping in" during the course of Town Hall meetings but
not be
present all of the time.
In
addition, a plainclothes officer is attending the series of six
public
hearings by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for the
Westport Weston Family Y's application for a new facility.
Asked
for comment, Fiore said, "I thought they [the board members]
handled
things appropriately." He also suggested that people call the
police if
there is a problem.
After the Feb.
26
incident, Joseloff and other town
officials started looking at ways to increase safety at Town Hall
meetings.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Westport NEWS website]
Stop School E-Mail
Abuse
DAY
editorial
Published
on
12/14/2007
Citizens
of
North Stonington have every right to be concerned that a
public school teacher used her work e-mail account to
send out
political missives.
That
is
absolutely unacceptable.
And
despite the
public apology of Darren Robert, the Democratic
chairman of the town's Board of Education, a thorough
investigation of
the alleged misuse of the e-mail system should be
instigated.
Public
school
employees should never, ever use public property for
political
purposes.
The
dust-up in
North Stonington is jarringly similar to a situation
that occurred in New London last May. In the Whaling
City instance,
Alvin G. Kinsall, the Democratic chairman of the Board
of Education,
asked the administrative aide to the superintendent of
schools to send
out an e-mail to district employees and supporters to
head off a move
by two city councilors to cut $500,000 from the
education budget.
In
this case,
the employee did what the school board chairman asked
her. But the message she sent was politically charged
and should have
signaled a red flag. The two councilors involved never
filed a formal
complaint, because they understood it was the
administrative aide who
might ultimately be penalized, and not Mr. Kinsall, who
was clearly way
out of line.
New
London
schools Superintendent Christopher Clouet later
acknowledged the e-mail
was inappropriate.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at THE DAY (New London, CT) website]
FOI
request taxes schools' resources
Greenwich TIME
By Andrew
Shaw,
Staff
Writer
Published
April
14 2007
Greenwich
Public Schools officials say a recent parent request for the
release of
public documents under the Freedom of Information Act has created
a
burden on staff that will cost the district thousands of dollars
and
thousands of hours of work.
Superintendent
of
Schools Betty Sternberg gave a progress report to the Board of
Education at Thursday's regular work session. The FOI request by
Marianna Cohen seeks to retrieve all e-mails sent and received by
seven
of the top district administrators, including Sternberg, from
Sept. 6,
2006, through March 15.
Cohen, who
attended the meeting, specifically is seeking any e-mails
regarding
Parkway School, Glenville School and the board's task force on
racial
imbalance, space use and declining enrollment.
"It will
take,
really, a tremendous amount of dollars and effort," Sternberg
said.
Jan Gunnip,
the
director of technology, told the board that she has two staff
members
working two hours a day each, essentially pulling them off duty
from
helping teachers. The staff has collected 10 weeks worth of
e-mails so
far in about a week and a half, she informed the board.
"It's
painful
for us to do that," she said.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Greenwich TIME website]
The
FOI Law Is The Law: Norwich councilors
conduct public business on the phone without the
public.
By Day Staff
Writer
Published on 3/12/2007
Facing a bitter
dispute between Mayor Ben Lathrop and
a departing City Manager Robert Zarnetske, members of the
Norwich City
Council have maneuvered themselves into violating the
state's
right-to-know law. What the councilors and mayor did is
repeated in
many cities and towns, but it's still going against the
state Freedom
of Information Act, and it's not right.
The councilors and mayor got on the phone and basically
had a secret
meeting about what they would do to hire a successor for
the city
manager, who had announced he was resigning because of
insurmountable
differences with Mayor Lathrop.
The problem is that too many public officials consider
such phone chats
as a privilege. They don't get it that the electronic
conversations
amount to a meeting of elected public officials without
city residents
having any idea that the meeting is taking place or that
the councilors
are conducting public business over the phone.
The phone meetings, without any public notice, are every
bit as
egregious as though the councilors had all gotten together
at a Norwich
bar or restaurant to talk about city business without the
public's
knowing what they were doing. Or even knowing that they
were meeting.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at THE DAY (New London, CT) website]
Mitchell
Pearlman's Service; Director of state agency a sterling
advocate
for the public's right to know what government is doing.
DAY
editorial
Published on
12/9/2005
The Freedom
of
Information Act is the vehicle that allows all
Connecticut citizens to find out what their local and state
governments
are doing. It is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society,
so the
work of the state commission that administers the legislation is
one of
the most important in state government.
Later this
month, Mitchell W. Pearlman will retire as director of the
state Freedom of Information Commission. Since the state
established
the commission in 1975, Mr. Pearlman has been the leader of this
state
agency that protects the public's right to know. He has done a
splendid
job.
In the
mid-1970s, a group of newspaper editors persuaded Gov. Ella T.
Grasso that too much of what happened in state and local
governments
took place behind closed doors or without official record. That
was
wrong, they said. The people of Connecticut had a right to know
virtually everything that their governments did.
Gov. Grasso
agreed and supported legislation establishing the FOI
Commission. The bill passed and the organization went to work to
make
government more accountable to the public.
As a result,
the people of Connecticut now have access to virtually all
government meetings except when agencies are discussing matters
exempted from disclosure. And those exemptions are extremely
limited.
Mr. Pearlman
has made his job a balancing act. That is to say, the
commission he headed has heard thousands of appeals about
potential FOI
Act violations and judged them with an objectivity that has been
superior. On the other side, as an advocate for openness in
government,
Mr. Pearlman has been passionate, persistent and patient —
passionate
in advocating for open government, persistent in tackling
recalcitrant
opponents and patient in seeking additional amendments improving
the
FOI Act.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at THE DAY (New London, CT) website]
Commission
still untrained in information laws
Stamford
ADVOCATE
By Natasha
Lee,
Staff Writer
Published
December 24 2006
STAMFORD --
Nearly nine months after the city agreed to train fire
commissioners
about open-records laws, it has yet to uphold its end of the
bargain.
The deal was
reached in April, after The Advocate filed a complaint with the
state
over the Fire Commission's failure to file meeting agendas,
meeting
minutes and members' votes as required under the state's Freedom
of
Information Act. The act protects citizens' rights to access
information from public agencies.
The city's
legal department, which agreed to make sure the commission adhered
to
open-records laws, said miscommunication between the department
and
commission has stalled the training.
"We probably
assumed the fire department was going to arrange that (the
training)
because they are the ones who were supposed to go," said the
city's
director of legal affairs, Thomas Cassone.
There is no
deadline for the training, but without it, the city and Fire
Commission
are not in compliance with the settlement. The Fire Commission
also
continues to violate the Freedom of Information Act by failing to
file
proper, detailed agendas.
City
attorney
Mike Toma said he contacted the state's Freedom of Information
Commission and the Fire Department's clerk Wednesday to arrange a
training date within the next couple of months.
The
settlement
came after The Advocate filed complaints with the state commission
over
a lack of meeting minutes and agendas supposed to be filed by the
Fire
Commission.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Stamford ADVOCATE website]
Police
panel shirks laws to hold meeting
Stamford
ADVOCATE
By Zach
Lowe,
Staff Writer
Published
December 12 2006
STAMFORD -
The
Police Commission barred the public from a special meeting
Saturday to
discuss undisclosed personnel issues and switched the site of the
meeting at the last minute.
The meeting
occurred after city officials accused the police union of
orchestrating
a nine-day sickout that apparently ended Friday. The union
has
denied organizing the sickout, which would be a violation of state
labor law and the union's contract with the city.
An Advocate
reporter went to 73 Ocean Drive West in the Shippan section of
Stamford
- the home of Police Commission Chairman Mark Denham - at 12:30
p.m.
Saturday to attend the meeting, but no one answered the door and
no one
appeared to be home. No lights were on, and no cars were in the
driveway.
It is
unusual
for the commission to meet on a weekend or at a member's home.
Most
meetings are held Monday evenings at police headquarters.
When
the reporter called police headquarters Saturday seeking the site
of
the meeting, the man who answered said neither he nor the desk
sergeant
on duty knew about a Police Commission meeting that day.
The meeting
was
held at police headquarters, Denham said. The commission moved the
meeting because he was out of town and could not host it, Denham
said.
He participated by telephone. City and Town Clerk Donna
Loglisci
said her office never received notice of the meeting, as required
by
the state Freedom of Information Act.
Denham would
not say what was discussed at the 12:30 p.m. meeting, which lasted
until 2:10 p.m. He said nearly the entire meeting was held in
executive
session, meaning the public could not attend.
Officer
Michael
Merenda, president of the police union, said the commissioners
would
not let him attend because they were in executive session. Merenda
said
the commissioners told him they went into executive session to
discuss
"personnel matters."
They did not
elaborate, he said.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Stamford ADVOCATE website]
FOI official:
Steakhouse meetings improper
By Kevin McCallum, Stamford ADVOCATE
Staff Writer
November 23, 2003
STAMFORD -- The police and fire
pension
boards have routinely violated state Freedom of Information laws
by
holding
what are supposed to be open public meetings in private rooms of
pricey
steakhouses, according to state FOI officials.
Officials
for
both pension boards
say their meetings at such places as Bennett's and Morton's
steakhouses
are not open to the public because sensitive medical information
and
investment
strategy are discussed. City and state officials say
that's
irrelevant.
"There
is
no special provision for
pension boards not noticing meetings, not being public, not
having
agendas,
things like that," said Tom Hennick, public education officer
for the
state
Freedom of Information Commission. The city has four
independent
pension boards. The certified and custodian boards hold open
meetings
in
the Government Center. They also send copies of their
agendas and meeting minutes to the
city clerk's office, where they can be reviewed by the
public.
The
police and fire pension boards don't file agendas or minutes or
open
their
meetings to the public.
Board
of
Finance member Joseph Tarzia
said the very location of the meetings makes them "secret."
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Stamford ADVOCATE website]
FOI Covers E-Mail, Voice Mail
http://www.state.ct.us/foi/What's_New/What's_New_Page.htm#NEW
EMAIL
AND VOICEMAIL DECLARATORY RULING
March 21, 2003 editorial, Hartford
Courant
When
the
state Freedom of Information
Act took effect 28 years ago, few could have predicted the
degree to
which
government business would one day be conducted by electronic
means.
By
using
computer e-mails and telephone
voice mails, officials can, in effect, skirt state FOI
requirements
involving
public access to records and meetings.
In
an
important draft ruling, the
FOI Commission recently concluded that e-mails and voice mails
are
public
records; that they must be retained; and that the public should
be able
to see copies of such records. The draft also says that such
communications
could constitute a "meeting" under state law.
[Please read the rest of this article in the archives at the Hartford COURANT website]