It is useful to remember, as we assess the shortcomings of our local government, that the whole operation is run largely by volunteers. With the skilled assistance and administration of some expert hired hands, the first selectman included, the Boards of Education, Finance, Selectmen, and the Legislative Council are populated by citizen/servants who contribute, without compensation, the utility of their varied experience to sustaining this community's high standards of education, public health and safety, social services, economic stability, environmental protection, and overall quality of life. At times, however, we are stunned to see how completely unschooled they can appear to be in the art of government even after some years of service.

Case in point: the sequence of political maneuvering and recrimination that started simmering in the Board of Education during last year's local election campaign, somehow boiling over into social media, resulting in an official investigative feint before landing on the agenda of a process-challenged Board of Ethics, which in turn issued a thinly-sourced set of conclusions last week to the Board of Selectmen for its consideration. As is usually the case with political wrangling of this sort, there was a good measure of indignation - in this case, over opacity and the control of information in an arena where there is supposed to be transparency and the freedom of information. Ironically, the process played out in a manner that demonstrated a disturbing disregard for the actual provisions of Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Here's the local narrative for the controversy. Two school board members, who are concerned about the circumvention of FOIA provisions by way of digital discussion of board business in private e-mails and text messages between board members and its attorney, are accused by other board members and a private citizen of leaking "confidential" information about these discussions to the public. They acknowledge sharing the information as the board considers a formal investigation of the matter. Balking at the cost of an investigation, the school board instead refers the matter to the Board of Ethics, which, after some closed sessions and secret balloting, concludes that the disclosure of confidential information violated provisions of the town's ethics code. The matter is then referred to the Board of Selectmen for a final ruling, which is still pending. In the meantime, one Board of Education member files a freedom of information complaint against the two information-sharing members, seeking to secure documentation revealing the names of those who received the "confidential" information.

From our perspective on the sidelines, here's how the FOIA got trampled in this march to transparency. Instead of seeking a ruling from the Freedom of Information Commission on the practice of discussing school board business via e-mail and texts, two board members presented their evidence and opinions on the matter to unspecified others, choosing dubious political back channels over proper channels. Instead of determining whether the shared information was indeed confidential as defined by FOIA, the indignant school board threw the issue to the Board of Ethics suggesting that two of their own members were guilty of ethical lapses. The Board of Ethics established a review process that did not clear the air, but bottled it up in closed sessions and secret ballots, in clear violation of FOIA provisions. The ethics panel also willfully ignored a FOI hearing officer's report to the full commission earlier this month, concluding that no confidential information was disclosed by the two school board members - a finding that undermines the entire basis of the school board's indignation and the ethics panel's inquiry.

Our representatives in local government may be volunteers, but they still have an obligation to understand and abide by their responsibilities under the law. Sadly, we find that all too often a basic understanding of FOIA statutory requirements eludes them, even after, in the school board's case, repeated workshop sessions with FOI experts. Clearly more schooling is needed locally in this aspect of the art of government.

We suggest once again that the town exercise its right to create a local Freedom of Information Advisory Board, under the provisions of FOIA "to facilitate the informed and efficient exchange of information" on the provisions of the act and to serve as a "liaison to the FOI Commission for educational purposes." The state will even provide the town with a model ordinance to accomplish this.