FOI Proposed Final Decision: Town Held Secret Meetings
During the campaign, while this blog was suspended, a hearing was held on the FOI complaint I had filed against the the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee. The hearing was my first experience in such a setting and I’m happy for the experience.
I received notice from the FOI commission that a final decision will be made on the complaint on December 2nd. As I expected the the proposed decision finds that the Real Estate Committee did hold illegal secret meetings on May 14th and 19th and failed to post the minutes of the May 14th meeting. As I also expected the decision will not void the meetings on the 14th & 19th. Perhaps I could have pressed for that a bit more strongly by filing a written brief following the hearing, but in light of the way business is conducted in Town Hall, and reflecting on the statements made by the Town’s legal representation at the hearing that the Real Estate meeting on the 14th didn’t matter, I felt that particular piece of fruit was not worth climbing for.
Here is the proposed decision.
I was looking over your FOI grievance. Item 4 made me wonder. If 3:00pm is the end of a business day for the Town of East Hartford, did they technically comply with the letter of the law by posting notice 12 minutes before the business day ended? If this is true then such technical compliance may violate the spirit of the law. I am sure the original authors of this law never meant for notice of a meeting to be given after the meeting was already held but before the business day ended. Technical compliance and spirit of the law is a huge can of worms since it is so subjective. This is my two cents worth. God bless America!
Sincerely Yours,
Dave Powers
That’s generally the approach I take when looking at what the town does, is it in the spirit of transparency and efficiency?
Item 4 demonstrates that the notice of the May 14th meeting wasn’t posted until almost an entire month after the meeting actually happened.
I received notice from the FOI commission that a final decision will be made on the complaint on December 2nd. As I expected the the proposed decision finds that the Real Estate Committee did hold illegal secret meetings on May 14th and 19th and failed to post the minutes of the May 14th meeting. As I also expected the decision will not void the meetings on the 14th & 19th. Perhaps I could have pressed for that a bit more strongly by filing a written brief following the hearing, but in light of the way business is conducted in Town Hall, and reflecting on the statements made by the Town’s legal representation at the hearing that the Real Estate meeting on the 14th didn’t matter, I felt that particular piece of fruit was not worth climbing for.
Wow Jon..Even though I fully expect you not to let this stay long, and I will be posting on Lady X’s blog as well, all I can say is WOW!!!! Secret meetings…no where in the decision does it say that the Real Estate
Committee had secret meetings. I recall the words inadvertent failure to post, but not secret…Did I miss some of the wording. I am not as expert as you in deciphering legalese. So please enlighten me.
Just for fun…here is the meat of the decision handed down by the State FOI Commission:
8. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant argued that he was prejudiced by
the respondent’s violation of the notice provisions of § 1-225( d), a.S., which was without
reasonable grounds, considering the contentious subject of the special meetings concerning
the transfer of Title of 590 Burnside Avenue in East Hartford (hereinafter “the property”), by
the East Hartford Town Council to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency. Consequently,
the complainant requested that the Commission declare the actions taken at such special
meetings null and void.
9. The respondent argued that, while it failed to post the records at issue in this
matter, declaring the actions taken by the respondent at the special meetings null and void is
unnecessary since the public was not prejudiced by the inadvertent error in failing to post
such records on the town’s website. The respondent claimed that the only action taken by the
committee at the special meetings was to make a recommendation to the East Hartford Town
Council regarding the transfer of title of the property. The respondent also claimed that at
the East Hartford Town Council’s properly noticed June 2,2009 and June 16,2009 special
meetings, public hearings were conducted for the purpose of allowing public comments on
the proposed transfer of title of the property, after which, the Council held regular meetings
on each respective date. The respondent further claimed that the complainant attended at
least one of the June 2009 special meetings and commented on the transfer of the property.
10. Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 7, above, it is found that the
Council Clerk inadvertently failed to post the notices and minutes at issue herein, and
understands the significance of timely posting such records in accordance with the FOI Act.
11. It is found, therefore, that the respondent’s violation of §§ 1-225(a) and (d), a.s.,
was unintentional.
12. After consideration of the entire record in this case, the Commission, in its
discretion, declines to declare the actions taken at the respondent’s May 14,2009 and May
19, 2009 special meetings null and void.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§ 1-225( a)
and (d), a.s.
I would think that this is not the victory you seem to be spinning it to be . I guess you could twist it however you want, but you did attend a public hearing on the matter of Daley Court, and were unsuccessful in your efforts to prevent the progress of the Daley Court project. You had your chance to be heard. Just like everybody else that attended those public hearings.
I think a reasonable person will read this decision and agree that it was just a housekeeping error and not some “secret: meeting to deceive the public , nor was there any sinister motives involved.
And for the record..as you know I am a member of the Redevelopment Commission.
Secret: not open or public; kept private or not revealed; “a secret formula”; “secret ingredients”; “secret talks”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
An undisclosed meeting is by its nature a secret meeting.
I will say I am extremely pleased that the Council has now reviewed the contract. The pre-emptive approval of the contract was one of the more significantly offensive parts to the June 16th actions in my mind. Whether or not my campaign gripe that the Council fails to read the contracts it votes on had any play in that I don’t know. I’m pleased none the less.
The whole issue could have been avoided all along and chalked up to a political disagreement had the law been followed.
11. It is found, therefore, that the respondent’s violation of §§ 1-225(a) and (d), a.s.,
was unintentional.
“Unintentional”
Using your own source
# S: (adj) unintentional, unwilled (without deliberate intent) “my heart with unwilled love grew warm”- George Macdonald
# S: (adj) unintentional, unplanned, unwitting (not done with purpose or intent) “an unintended slight”; “an unintentional pun”; “the offense was unintentional”; “an unwitting mistake may be overlooked”
Again I guess you can spin things however you want, but it seems that the FOI COmmission found it to be a simple error, with out any of the subterfuge you keep espousing in your postings