Sandwiched between two key budget meetings earlier this week, Wilton’s Board of Selectmen (BOS) convened a special meeting Tuesday afternoon, Mar. 4, to review Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements for conducting Town board business in ways that ensure public access.

All members of Wilton’s numerous Town boards and commissions receive FOIA training when they are appointed or elected. The Mar. 4 meeting was billed as a routine review of proper procedures. (Though attendance at the meeting was quite limited, First Selectman Toni Boucher told GOOD Morning Wilton all board/commission members had been invited to attend the meeting, which was held remotely, and could view the video recording at a later date.)

The meeting was led by Town attorneys Ira W. Bloom and Nicholas R. Bamonte of
Bercham Moses, P.C.

Bloom began the meeting with a reminder about FOIA’s fundamental purpose.

“[FOIA] provides for transparency in the conduct of public business,” Bloom said. “It covers how we conduct our meetings, and it covers how the public can access information.”

In the opening statement of their FOIA overview (which is posted on the Town website), the attorneys emphasized the strictness of the state law and recommended Wilton officials take “a very conservative approach” to it:

“The Freedom of Information Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-200 through 1-241, represents Connecticut’s commitment to open government and a strong policy in favor of public access to meetings and records. The laws concerning access to public meetings are strict and it is suggested that the Town of Wilton take a very conservative approach in the interpretation and implementation of those laws.”

Bloom noted that FOIA violations of the law don’t always go unnoticed by the public, and recounted examples from other nearby municipalities where they had real consequences. He said violations are not always just a “slap on the wrist” and the penalties for municipalities can sometimes be “extreme,” including fines by the FOI Commission or voiding of a town board/commission decision.

Meetings

Much of the discussion focused on the requirements for giving proper notice of meetings and providing meeting agendas. Bamonte carefully reviewed the specific procedures for regular meetings, special meetings and emergency meetings.

He spent additional time explaining how some conversations or communications by town officials outside of a meeting could also be defined as a “meeting” and subject to the same notice requirements as conventional meetings. Referring to the language of the statute, Bamonte explained how some emails or conversations could be FOIA violations:

“… any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.”

Bamonte explained that a one-to-one or casual discussion between two board members about business matters would rarely be a problem, but any private discussions could easily cross the line. Email chains can be particularly risky. Other rules pertain to sub-committee groups or members of the same political party to “caucus” for some purposes.

However, the attorneys emphasized the real spirit of the law is about achieving the highest transparency possible.

“What it comes down to, the whole intention of this law is to have these discussions in public,” Bamonte said.

Bloom echoed that point.

“I’d be very careful about having too many private substantive discussions, because what they tell you at the [FOI] Commission is that the public business ought to be discussed in public,” Bloom said. “And that’s kind of the guiding principle here — save those substantive discussions about the issue you want on the agenda for the public meeting, so everybody on the board can hear and the public can hear. That’s the safest way to do it.”

Boucher told Bloom she felt a number of topics were particularly deserving of attention:

“I think definitely email procedures, what people can and can’t do with emails; what they do as a member of the board outside of a board meeting; the way in which they communicate with the public, email the public, you know, write letters, etc.; how they conduct themselves as a member of the board outside of a meeting…”

Executive Sessions

FOIA does allow some matters to be discussed by Town officials in confidential executive sessions, out of the public’s view, for very specific purposes, including:

  • Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee
  • Strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation
  • Matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security
  • Discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate… when publicity would adversely impact the price

The purpose of an executive session must be stated, either in the meeting agenda or in a vote to enter executive session during a meeting. In the case of real estate matters, Boucher asked for clarification on whether officials are required to publicly disclose the specific property being discussed in executive session.

“That has not been helpful to us,” Boucher said.

As a notable example, she cited previous executive sessions which disclosed the Town-owned Gilbert & Bennett school property as the topic of discussion. Those executive sessions have fueled some area residents’ criticism of the Town for “lack of transparency” about plans for the building, which was closed by the Health Department last August for unsafe building conditions.

Boucher said the practice of disclosing specific properties being discussed in executive sessions has sometimes led to “wild accusations”.

“It has caused a lot of public discussion ahead of anything even happening,” she said.

While the attorneys agreed a specific address was not required to be disclosed when discussing a potential real estate sale or lease, both attorneys cautioned Boucher that executive sessions were not appropriate in all circumstances.

“You do have to [reach] the conclusion that it would affect the value or the terms by discussing this in public,” Bloom said. “That is often the case. It’s not always the case.”