Newtown Facilities Manager Sean Heslin, along with Technology Specialist Anthony Rodriguez, Public Works Director Fred Hurley, and Land Use Director Rob Sibley, gave a presentation on a plan to update the town’s audio-visual and streaming capabilities at the February 17 Board of Selectmen meeting.

The five phase plan began discussion back in October 2025 as a response to an FOI complaint from resident Dave Ackert over accessibility to meetings and public records. Ackert’s complaint noted that there was no capability for the town to accommodate overflow audience members at meetings once a room reached its capacity, as well as a lack of accessibility to records that he felt should be readily available to the public.

Heslin said that the town’s Council Chambers in the Municipal Center went online in 2009 and have only seen a small investment since in small items like microphones, but no major upgrades. The room itself, with rounded walls and roof, has “poor acoustics” and a noticeable echo and would need investment in soundproofing materials.

The objectives of the upgrades are to make the audio Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, seamless integration of audio and video, comprehensive service agreements that would allow outside troubleshooting, and ongoing assessments of the town’s capabilities.

The project will be divided into five phases.

Phase 1 is implementation of sound dampening in the Council Chambers to fix echoing and poor acoustics, as well as enhancing the equipment. This part of the project will cost $38,956 and the town has the funding in place.

Phase 2 will be to make the Council Chambers audio system ADA compliant, as it is currently out of compliance. The ADA requires the town to have four percent of its total capacity in devices for the hearing impaired. With a capacity of 199, that means it needs eight of those devices.

Phase 3 will be video conferencing equipment, assessing the town’s video capabilities and space. Heslin said this would be a “hybrid solution” to make the town “more nimble,” making it possible to stream meetings without requiring someone to be in the booth.

Phase 4 will be getting service contracts in place.

“We don’t want to have to upgrade everything again in 20 years,” said Heslin. “We want to budget for continuous upgrades.”

Service contracts would also allow for remote access to software for outside parties to troubleshoot.

The final phase will be a townwide meeting space assessment that will go beyond just AV capabilities.

Heslin said funding for converting one of the Community Center’s meeting rooms to have full streaming capabilities is in the 2027 Capital Improvement Plan.

Selectman Paul Lundquist questioned that if the town was looking at improvements to the council chambers, would adding streaming to a meeting room in the Community Center still be necessary.

Heslin said the focus was on flexibility in options. Selectman Jeff Capeci also noted that there is another advantage — as the Council Chambers is the only room with streaming capabilities, having a second room would allow two different boards to stream if their meetings overlap.

“Right now, if two boards meet simultaneously there is a winner and a loser,” said Capeci. “This will allow greater public access.”

Sibley also discussed access to zoning records, which was another piece of Ackert’s complaint. He said that links were placed on the town website that would allow the public to e-mail full boards and commissions, without making private e-mails available. Lundquist noted that board members could make e-mail accounts just for their town work and not direct them to private accounts, but Sibley noted that P&Z and Inland Wetlands are legally limited in what they can hear from the public on applications outside of public hearings.

Sibley also noted there is money in the budget to make a new permitting system available for the first time, which would allow more public access to records, but it has to pass in the budget. He said in the meantime, his department is doing what it can to make records available as “compatible with the request and state statutes.”

Lundquist asked about Inland Wetlands not streaming their meetings and making remote participation available in spite of the fact that they meet in the Council Chambers. Sibley replied that if streaming was available to them they would be “more than happy” to stream their meetings. They would require the necessary funding of approximately $100 per meeting.

Sibley also said he spoke with the Town of Norwalk concerning their streaming capabilities, which have been held up as a model. He said the meeting was productive and “fruitful,” but that Norwalk had “invested heavily in AV and their ability to get online,” and they hired a dedicated AV employee as the system was more than could be handled with interns.

The FOI complaint by Ackert had been settled in December, but Ackert filed a new complaint in early February, asking for “read-only access to a file or folder stored in the cloud, as is included under the ‘any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person’ part of Sec 1-21;

“If someone requests to see already existing e-mails, public documents in already existing shared files or folders on cloud drives, and/or any other already existing electronic public files pertinent to an upcoming public meeting, they should receive them with ample time to review them prior to the meeting, and;

“The Public is entitled to access non-exempt public files with the same convenience, speed and ease as members of boards and commissions.”

In an e-mail to the FOI Commission, Ackert stated, “The town of Newtown, including its First Selectmen and Land Use Agency have been violating Sec 1-211 of the CT Freedom of Information Act for months, and has left no other option to filing this formal complaint. I was hopeful that the new First Selectman, who campaigned on improving transparency and public participation, would correct these violations. But sadly, he is defending these practices instead.”

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.