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.

After the Feb. 26 incident, Joseloff and other town officials started looking at ways to increase safety at Town Hall meetings.

The first selectman pointed out that he wrote an opinion column for the Westport News issue of March 5. He also prepared a memo for department heads and all chairmen of all boards and commissions.

Since the memo and column, there has been a greater police presence, according to Joseloff. Since the Adler incident there has been a uniformed officer in meeting rooms or nearby.

The first selectman emphasized that he doesn't want to infringe on anyone's right to speak at meetings but there is a line "when someone gets physically threatening."

Informal meetings were held prior to the Wednesday evening executive session.

Also, there may be security cameras in the future. The town might already be prepared on that front because meetings in Town Hall are recorded even if there isn't a live broadcast.

"We walked out of the Wednesday meeting feeling happy Gordon [Joseloff] had addressed the issue," said Jim Ezzes, the ZBA chairman. "By having police on alert, we were pleased it will be a normal part of meeting control."

Recalling the fracas, Ezzes said, "It was a very frightening, very threatening experience to be attacked by someone in this blind rage and not knowing why."

At the meeting in which Ezzes said the board couldn't discuss the previous request, Adler became angry and repeated his request. When he did so a third time, Ezzes told Adler to leave the meeting or he would call the police.

In the final chapter of the tense evening at Town Hall, Westport police arrived three minutes after the phone call to the relief of Ezzes and the other ZBA board members.

It is doubtful the House Select Committee of Inquiry will turn over the documents to Rowland and the public for review. The panel will seek an immediate stay today and file an appeal in Superior Court, the committee co-chairmen said.  That court challenge could take longer to conclude than the committee's investigation into Rowland. The
10-member panel plans to release its documents once it releases its recommendation to the House of Representatives on Rowland's possible impeachment.

"I certainly hope that an appeal will take longer than the committee will take to finish its business," said state Rep. Arthur O'Neill, R-Southbury, the committee co-chairman.
Rowland's lawyers were denied access to documents and statements from Kurt Claywell, a state contractor who said he gave the governor thousands of dollars in Cuban cigars and champagne to speed up payments to his electrical company.  Claywell has said he will testify before the committee.

Members of the inquiry committee say releasing the documents could jeopardize continuing investigations. Rowland's lawyers have said he should have access under Connecticut's open records laws to information being relied on by the panel.  Committee members argue they need to keep documents from the investigation secret to protect the probe and encourage reluctant witnesses to turn over needed information. Last week, the legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill that would keep documents private until after the inquiry committee finishes its work.  Rowland has said he would not veto or sign the bill, allowing it to automatically become law at 12:01 a.m. today.

Susan Quinn Cobb, an assistant attorney general representing the committee, urged the FOI commission to wait until after the bill becomes law to consider the governor's complaint. She said it was clear the legislature wanted to keep the documents private until after the panel completed its work.  But FOI Commissioner Andrew J. O'Keefe, who issued a preliminary ruling Monday siding with the governor's lawyers, said the commission should only consider what the law was at the time of Rowland's request to see the documents.

"There was an entitlement to the governor to those records at that time," said O'Keefe, adding the inquiry committee is a public agency and should abide by state FOI laws.
Mitchell Pearlman, executive director of the FOI commission, also sided with Rowland's lawyers. He said waiting until today or a week from today would not change what the law was when Rowland sought the records and was denied access.  State Rep. John Wayne Fox, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the inquiry committee, said he was
disappointed with the ruling and suggested the commission was upset by the recent legislation that will keep tens of thousands of documents private until after the inquiry panel finishes its work. Under the bill, only documents entered into evidence will be available immediately to the public and media.

"The commission from Day One was unhappy with the proposal and this was their way of circumventing it," Fox said.

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."

"How is the public going to go to a place where it costs you $100 to eat?" he said.  Police Lt. Frank Cronin and Assistant Fire Chief Peter Brown said they don't believe their respective boards are required to hold open meetings. Cronin stressed the sensitivity of medical information reviewed during discussions of disability pensions.

"Even if (the public) did come, the best part of the meeting would be in executive session," Cronin said.  Cronin, who has been on a board for 12 years, denied a request by The Advocate to attend a meeting. He also denied a request to review meeting minutes, citing the medical information that might be contained in the documents.

A review of the board's agendas for the past three years showed 35 meals at Bennett's, two at Morton's and three at other restaurants. The fund's financial adviser picks up the bill for the meals, Cronin said.  Brown, who has been on the fire pension board for 20 years, said it has received legal advice in the past informing the board that its meetings did not have to be open to the public.

Burton Rosenberg, an attorney for the city, said the pension boards are independent and it is not the Law Department's role to advise them.  But Mayor Dannel Malloy, who serves on the board of the largest pension fund, for classified employees, had some advice for the police and fire boards.

"As far as I'm concerned, they are public bodies and someone should file a Freedom of Information request," Malloy said. "They should be required to file their agendas and their minutes . . . just like everyone else."  Tarzia said the boards should not only be hauled before the FOI commission, but other agencies also should investigate their spending habits.

"The bottom line is whose interest are they watching out for -- the pensioners or themselves?" he said. 

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.

There are obvious obstacles involving cost and technology to fulfill those requirements, but the principle is sound. Government business must be conducted in public and people should not be excluded from the decision-making process.  The FOI commission offers an example in which three selectmen exchange e-mails and voice mails about a proposed legal settlement. Under the FOI draft, these communications would be public records. However, the draft says the exchange also would violate the law's open meeting requirements if the public was excluded.

Keeping copies of e-mails about government business should not be difficult. Storing voice mail records could be trickier, but still possible.  It seems unlikely that any agency will try to conduct official business exclusively by e-mail or voice mail. But with the rapid development of new electronic forms of communication, the possibilities for abuse escalate. For example, the draft notes that a quorum of a public agency's members could log into a computer "chat" room to discuss official business without informing the public.

The FOI Commission is on the right track. People ought to have access to government records, even when the information is contained in e-mails and voice mails. And official meetings should not be conducted out of public view.