To the Editor:

On Tuesday October 27th a meeting notice was posted on the Newtown web site and also distributed by email to residents. The email posted an agenda for a Board of Selectman special meeting to be held on October 28th at 7 pm. The agenda was: Executive Session – Legal Pending Litigation. The agenda was signed E. Patricia Llodra.

I sent an email to the first selectman late Tuesday pointing out that the structure of this notice was a violation of the FOI regulations because it failed to adequately apprise the public of the business to be transacted. Wednesday morning the meeting was cancelled. This is particularly disturbing since the Board of Selectman violated these FOI regulations previously. They agreed to a mediated settlement for the violation and agreed to FOI training and then all three selectman failed to attend the actual training session held in the Municipal Center. Violations of FOI regulations have, by boards and commissions, become far too frequent in Newtown, with even the Ethics Board improperly noticing an executive session.  (October 1st agenda called for simply an “Executive Session”). On the October 6th Board of Education agenda an executive session was noticed simply as” Personnel Update,” another violation of FOI regulations. These unfortunately demonstrates a frequent lack of transparency.

The pertinent decision and reasoning by the FOI Commission is below.

FOI final decision FOI-2013 7379.  This Commission has repeatedly stated that in order for the public to be fairly apprised of the business to be transacted during an executive session, the public agency must give some indication of the specific topic to be addressed, prior to convening such session. See, for example, Docket #FIC2012-502; Kate King and the Stamford Advocate v. Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford (May 8, 2013) (“legal strategy” failed to identify with sufficient particularity reason for respondents’ executive session); Docket #FIC2010-741; Richard Stone and Debra Stone v. David Palmer, Chairman, Board of Education, Somers Public Schools, et al (September 14, 2011) (“legal matters” insufficient to inform public what respondents planned to discuss in executive session); Docket #FIC 2009-333; Dostaler v. Water Development Task Force, Town of East Hampton (March 24, 2010) (“pending litigation” failed to adequately apprise public of business to be transacted).

The FOI Act, sometimes referred to as the Sunshine Act was created to make sure that public busi-ness is conducted within view of the public.

Bruce Walczak

12 Glover Avenue, Newtown         October 29, 2015