F.O.I. back on the WEB!
Stamford Police Commission doesn't get it,
yet! E-MAIL
and Voicemail Proposed Declaratory
Ruling...
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.
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.
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.
But now it's
happened again in North Stonington, and this time
residents Ron Lewis and Robert Miner pursued the matter by filing a
request under the state's Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies
of all of the political e-mails sent to or from the school address.
Reportedly there were more than 300 of them, many sent during the
school day, and a few from Mr. Robert, the school board chair, and
fellow board member William Briscoe.
Mr. Robert has
apologized, but that is not enough. As an elected
official, he should know better than to share his political views on
school-district-issued e-mail. It is no different than if he had sent
out his missives on Board of Education stationery.
And what about
the teacher politicking on her students' time? Even if
the e-mails were sent on her lunch break, she has no business using
school property to disseminate political views.
It's also an
injustice to parents whose e-mail addresses were provided
to the school for school-related business. They didn't anticipate, nor
should expect, to get political messages.
E-mail has been
around long enough now for people to understand that it
is a quick and efficient way to communicate. But municipal employees
have to know it is inappropriate to use e-mail for political purposes.
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.
The original
request was made March 16, with additional requests and a prioritized
list also given to school officials. The FOI act states that any public
agency is required to provide all records on file upon request, with
some exceptions, such as information like personal health or student
education records.
Sternberg, the
former state Commissioner of Education, said she has never seen an FOI
request of such breadth and depth from one person. Sternberg said she
does not take issue with fulfilling the request, which the district is
legally obligated to do, but she said she's concerned students'
education will suffer as a result of staff members being pulled away
from their regular duties.
"It's certainly
a diversion of resources," Sternberg said.
Sternberg did
not want to guess the reason behind making the request, although she
does not predict it is a preliminary step for a lawsuit. She said the
content that Cohen will be given does not contain any secrets.
"I have nothing
to hide," Sternberg said.
She told the
board that additional staff support may be required in the form of a
temporary worker at a cost of $27 an hour. Legal fees also will be
applied. The costs must be absorbed by the district. The person
requesting documents only is required to pay for the cost of printing
the materials.
Board members
advised the administration not to put the request too high on the
priority list.
Under FOI,
there is no definitive deadline to comply with a request, as long as
the agency can prove they are working on fulfilling it in a timely
manner, according to Tom Hennick, a state FOI public education officer.
"If a person
makes a big request, the trade-off is you're not going to make it
tomorrow," Hennick said. The district should make it clear that it is
handling the request as best as possible, he said.
The law only
stipulates the agency must give "prompt access" of the records.
"Promptness is truly in the eyes of the beholder," Hennick said.
Board member
Bill Kelly advised Sternberg to keep education the priority when
budgeting for time.
"We don't have
to comply as quickly as we're doing it," Kelly said.
Cohen, a
backcountry resident who has children at the elementary and middle
school levels, could not be reached for comment yesterday. When asked
before Thursday's meeting if she knew of the FOI request, she denied
knowledge of it.
In previous
public statements, Cohen, who has attended virtually all of the task
force meetings, has spoken out in support of postponing the Glenville
renovation until the board can address racial imbalance and declining
enrollment. She also has accused school officials of "cooking the
outcome" of the task force.
The information
Cohen has requested be available first is correspondence from and to
Sternberg, Parkway School principal Paula Bleakley, director of human
resources Ellen Flanagan, and assistant superintendent for business
services Sue Wallerstein. Cohen has asked that all of the information
be given to her by May 3.
Board
Chairwoman Colleen Giambo said the request needs to be fulfilled, but
there will be a cost. "There's a lot of competing demands," she said.
"Our priorities are the business of education."
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.
The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to make sure that the
public gets fair warning of the meetings of municipal agencies before
the events take place. The purpose is clear: to give citizens the
opportunity to attend the meetings, hear the information and ask
questions. Finding out after the fact that a meeting took place is no
consolation.
But we sometimes need to act quickly, officials assert. In its wisdom,
the FOI Act does provide for emergency meetings of city boards and
agencies, but also requires that notices of those meetings be posted in
advance and that minutes of such meetings be made public within 72
hours of the meeting.
In the Norwich case, one can argue persuasively that the councilors did
not have to have an emergency meeting. But if they did, they could have
posted a notice in the city clerk's office.
The problem is that public officials all too often find the
requirements of the FOI Act to be cumbersome, inconvenient and
annoying. Too bad. Democracy can be messy business.
The reason that former Gov. Ella T. Grasso threw her considerable
political support behind the passage of a state FOI law in the first
place is that too many town and city officials were holding secret
meetings that pre-empted participation by the public. Too much was
happening in smoke-filled rooms — without notice, without reason and
without the public.
Thanks to Gov. Grasso and a handful of determined newspaper editors,
Connecticut has a progressive law that advocates the rights of the
public to government information and meetings.
The Norwich councilors may find the law inconvenient, but it is the
law. In the future, they should pledge to obey it.
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.
He and his
staff have traveled throughout the state to explain to local
officials and the public the intricacies of the FOI Act and their
rights and responsibilities contained in the legislation.
Within the
judiciary, in the state departments, in local and state
police matters and in many other activities, the presence of the
Connecticut FOI Act has improved state and local government. Mr.
Pearlman has been the ringmaster and conductor of that experience, and
he has used the power judiciously.
One of the
myths that he helped to dispel is the notion that the
Freedom of Information Act was designed to make it easier for nosy
newspaper, radio and TV editors and reporters to snoop into the
business of government. Rather, the FOI Act confirms the rights of all
the people of Connecticut, he has explained. In fact, more than 75
percent of the cases brought to the FOI Commission come from members of
the overall public and not from media plaintiffs.
At home, Mr.
Pearlman played a key role in establishing the Connecticut
Foundation for Open Government, a foundation that involves media
editors, businessmen and women, educators, lawyers and others
interested in promoting free speech and open government. The foundation
raises money to enhance educational programs and other activities that
promote open and good government.
Mitchell
Pearlman has traveled to many other states to advocate for
strong Freedom of Information laws. He also has spread the gospel of
open government in countries scattered around the globe — to China,
Morocco, Slovakia, South Africa, Mexico and other places.
He is truly the
people's friend, and his absence from the Freedom of
Information Commission is a major loss to the state.
Rowland gets
access to papers
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press
April 21, 2004
HARTFORD -- A state commission yesterday
ruled Gov. John G. Rowland's lawyers can see documents that were
provided
to the legislative panel investigating the governor by a contractor who
is also cooperating with federal investigators. The Freedom of
Information
Commission voted 3-0 yesterday, with one commissioner abstaining, to
side
with the governor's lawyers.
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.
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.
The Freedom of
Information Act requires that minutes of public meetings be made
available to the public within seven days.
During an
investigation into the fire department's hiring practices beginning
last year, The Advocate attempted to review agendas and minutes, after
learning that friends and relatives of commissioners and firefighters
were named next in line for job openings over other candidates who
scored higher on the firefighters exam. Mayor Dannel Malloy's nephew,
fire chief Robert McGrath's son and the son of Fire Commissioner E.
Gaynor Brennan were among the candidates in line for jobs.
Top scorers not
hired told The Advocate they thought the process was fixed because they
were asked few questions during brief interviews by the fire
commissioners.
When The
Advocate tried to obtain records of the meeting minutes and how
commissioners voted for applicants, none of the documents was available
at the city clerk's office or fire department offices. The Freedom of
Information Act requires that records of how each commissioner votes on
an issue be made public within 48 hours.
The commission
has since changed its hiring policy to require members to score
applicants' oral interviews on a scale of 1 to 10, with each
commissioner's assessment kept on file and available to the public
should applicants question why they were not hired.
Under the
settlement, the city's legal department acknowledged the commission
failed to keep and file proper records as required by law. As part of
the settlement, the legal department also agreed to review the agendas
and meetings of the city's 23 boards and commissions twice a year. In
turn, The Advocate agreed to drop two pending complaints regarding the
Fire Commission before the Freedom of Information Commission.
Cassone said
his staff has started reviewing agendas and minutes, checking to make
sure they are detailed, and for any "glaring mistakes." The review will
be filed with the mayor's office by the Jan. 1 deadline. The second
review deadline is July 1.
The city's
Board of Representatives and Board of Finance members are given
guidebooks that reference Freedom of Information laws, as well as
procedures and guidelines for running meetings, preparing agendas and
filing minutes. Commissioners, whose positions are either approved or
appointed, typically rely on more experienced members to share
commission guidelines, Cassone said.
"People who are
volunteers are prone to make mistakes, and it's our responsibility to
guide them when we see them. And certainly if The Advocate, or anybody,
points out noncompliance of the Freedom of Information laws, we'll
advise them," he said.
The law
department routinely offers Freedom of Information workshops for newly
elected or appointed officials, Cassone said.
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.
Public meetings
may go into executive session to discuss personnel issues only if the
matter involves a specific employee or employees, according to state
Freedom of Information laws. The employee or employees must agree to
have the meeting held in executive session.
Denham said
yesterday the commission discussed general personnel issues, not cases
involving specific employees.
"I guess we
made a mistake then," Denham said when informed of the rules for
executive session. "It was my understanding we could go into executive
session for personnel issues whenever we wanted."
Loglisci said
yesterday that her office did not receive notice of a Saturday police
commission meeting. Special meetings, such as the one held Saturday,
are required by law to be posted with the town clerk at least 24 hours
in advance. The notice must state the time and place of the meeting and
the business scheduled to be discussed.
There also is
no record of a Saturday meeting on the Police Commission's page on the
city's Web site, www.cityofstamford.org.
"Personnel
matters" were the only issues to be discussed, according to an agenda
for the meeting sent to The Advocate. Under state law, boards and
commissions are supposed to specify what they plan to discuss.
Mayor Dannel
Malloy wrote to the chairmen of dozens of city boards and commissions
in January reminding them of their obligation to file agendas with the
city clerk and take minutes at all meetings. The Police Commission -
which had not filed any records with the clerk's office for two years -
then filed records dating to 2004. At the time, the Fire Commission was
being scrutinized for lax record-keeping of its meetings.
Under the state
Freedom of Information Act, records of votes must be made public within
48 hours, and minutes of meetings must be available for public
inspection within seven days.
In January,
Malloy said boards and commissioners commonly overuse executive
sessions because members, who are volunteers, don't know the rules.
"I think if you
ask most people, they think you can talk about personnel issues in
executive sessions, when in fact personnel issues alone is not
sufficient reason," the mayor said at the time. "Even when they are
going into executive session, the public should know what they are
discussing in executive session."
Members must
vote to go into executive session.
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."
"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.
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.
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.