A community newspaper sees that the public is informed, and that government business is conducted in a lawful manner. Without a watch dog attitude from local newspapers, even good intentions by those in power can slip. It is because a journalist is on scene to observe and report, to ask hard questions and demand complete answers that leaders and public agencies remain trustworthy. The Newtown Bee on occasion has been a thorn in the side when questions as to policy and actions arise - and in some instances, has brought concerns before the Freedom of Information (FOI) Commission. The Newtown Bee contended in an FOI complaint that the stated agenda for that session - to confer with counsel about hearing procedures - differed from what minutes show was actually discussed: specific complaints against individuals. Town Attorney David Grogins later clarified to the paper that he provided incomplete information to the board that individuals involved had a right to be notified and request those meetings be public. Since board members believed they were carrying out duties in a proper manner, it seemed reasonable for The Newtown Bee to not pursue the appeals.The Newtown Bee, as well, which in this process was schooled on subtleties of the FOIA and the Connecticut Statutes. Pursuing information through legal means is never our goal; but it is our public duty to ensure process does not give way to politics and personal disputes.

In May, this paper did file FOI complaints (appeals), which we believed would lead to transparency on the part of the Newtown Board of Ethics. The appearance of improper public notification of meetings, illegal calling of executive sessions, apparent secret meetings, as well as the lack of response from that board on specific questions regarding closed sessions that seemed to be in violation of policy led us to these actions. This is a board that must maintain the highest standards, being the moral compass for town staff and appointed or elected officials.

Admission on the part of the Newtown Board of Ethics that its members had violated the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) on May 18 by polling board members by telephone to identify individual votes taken a month earlier, clarified a question posed by this paper repeatedly as to how information on secret ballots was obtained. (Our inquiries followed an admonition by FOI hearing officer Tom Hennick to this board, according to minutes from June 1, "You cannot conduct your business electronically... don't have the conversations via text or e-mail, that should be happening in public.")

Last week, we were pleased that answers were forthcoming, narrowly avoiding the FOI hearing. To have the answer is gratifying, but to have this admission withheld until the hearing was imminent remains mystifying.

The Board of Ethics also acknowledged that an executive session on March 14, 2016, was a violation of the FOIA, although legal counsel indicated it was permissible.

The admissions to violations of the FOI signal that the integrity of this board is restored to a level that can give townspeople confidence. Lessons learned will lead to similar situations being handled with knowledgable attention.

This goes for

Understanding the complex laws that demand transparency from town boards is complicated. When even legal counsel is misinterpreted or incomplete, we must acknowledge that dedicated volunteers who make up our boards and commissions may struggle.

Like a good watch dog, a newspaper must determine when to bark and when to bite; cooperation when concerns arise benefit all involved and, most importantly, benefit the public.