Calls For Policies To Create Greater Transparency
To The Editor:
“I just checked and there is no documented policy, but I think you are correct, one should be created and distributed to all appointed and elected Town boards. It should also be made available on the Town website. Such a policy would have to be developed, consistent with the CT Freedom of Information law, by my office and approved by the Board of Selectmen. I will take the action item to draft one in the near future.” – Jeff Capeci, February 2024
It’s been sixteen months since the First Selectman committed to drafting a town-wide policy to provide greater transparency, easier access to public documents and public participation in town meetings, including remote access to documents and meetings, consistently across all commissions, boards and town departments (see below)…and things have only gotten worse.
The last two P&Z meetings had 5 public hearings on their agendas, with no links to any applications or public documents provided to the commissioners, or residents. On 5/15, there were 100+ people in a room where half can’t see the screen, with a posted capacity of 70, and another 20+ standing in the hallways.
Afterwards, several requests were made by residents, commissioners and a BOS member to hold future large meetings in a larger room. Nonetheless, another five P&Z public hearings were held 6/5, with 85 people in the same room where half can’t see the screen, and several more standing in the hallway….another avoidable/willful Freedom of Information Act violation. Since then, the town’s only action was the Fire Marshall changing room occupancy sign limits, doing nothing to address the actual problems.
Several frustrated residents and elected/ appointed officials have asked me to file a CT FOI Commission complaint to put an end to the insanity. A complaint has been filed and I will only consider withdrawing it when the following changes are implemented consistently, across boards and commissions:
Links to digital copies of public documents included on meeting agendas and minutes, and via the town website, that can be accessed 24/7 by commissioners and the public “Public Input/participation” and “Communications Received” included on all agendas for all board/commission meetings, and attached to minutes
Meetings of all boards and commissions include the opportunity for public participation remotely via Zoom or similar free platform, and meetings are recorded, archived and linked to in the meeting minutes and on town website.
Public meetings held in rooms with sufficient SEATING to accommodate the public safely and comfortably, or meetings cannot proceed.
Public meetings held in rooms with adequate, fully functional audio/visual equipment that allows everyone in the room and logged in, to see and hear everything being presented and discussed, or meetings cannot proceed.
Other towns implemented these policies long ago. Implementing them here would be a win-win for everyone, and would also make things easier for town employees, saving taxpayer money in the process. At the end of the day, we need leadership on this. If the First Selectman can’t/won’t lead, perhaps the Legislative Council could.
Dave Ackert
Sandy Hook
I am feeling like Mr. Ackert’s quest/request for greater transparency of our town’s governance is disingenuous. First off, I cannot imagine how a “town-wide policy to provide greater transparency” could possibly be worded, and I think that Mr. Capeci was just being polite in agreeing that we should have one. Secondly, Mr. Ackert is accusatory, as if he believes something nefarious is behind the lack of transparency, where it exists, while I do not believe this at all. Third: The time, effort, and upkeep to have absolutely every town meeting interactively live, recorded, and fully documented, would obviously NOT save the town money, and I doubt that other towns of our type “implemented these policies long ago.” And lastly, after having witnessed the town meeting behaviors of the anti-development faction, I am certain that we should not facilitate their ability to sit at home and harangue the poor people who work so hard IN PERSON, to make our town a better place.
It’s important that we separate a genuine desire for transparency from what has become a pattern of disruption and obstruction masked as civic engagement. David Ackert’s latest complaint is not a new concern, but part of a sustained campaign of vexatious FOIA requests and inflammatory rhetoric that continues to cost this town hundreds of thousands in staff time and outside legal review—with little to no benefit for the broader community.
The First Selectman’s February 2024 commitment was reasonable: to draft a policy that balances transparency with practicality and compliance with existing Freedom of Information laws. What’s unreasonable is the ongoing expectation that a town of our size can operate like a large city, livestreaming and archiving every meeting, while simultaneously enduring frivolous complaints that only serve to harass rather than improve.
Let’s be clear: the issues described—meeting room size, screen visibility, etc.—are operational and solvable, but not constitutional crises. And it’s disingenuous to pretend that these challenges are proof of secret dealings or intentional violations. When every town meeting becomes a battleground for the same facebook NIMBY mob demanding more “access” while refusing to engage constructively, the result is not democracy—it’s dysfunction.
At some point, we must ask ourselves: who is truly advocating for the town’s best interest, and who is weaponizing FOIA and public participation as tools of obstruction? Accountability matters, and that applies equally to those making the accusations.
Its really easy to make assertions and cast doubts from behind a keyboard….a little too easy aparently. You might try conducting the actual research BEFORE doing it next time. If you do, you too will find that there’s no need to imagine such a policy to improve public transparency and participation. Take a look at Ridgefield’s P&Z meeting agendas on their website for starters. They are just one town that provide links to electronic copies of applications and other public documents, so that their commissioners and residents can easily access them and be well-informed, before meetings and public hearings occur and without making them drive to town hall (during business hours) to ask their land use staff to pull the files and make copies of them, saving everyone time (time is money), and gasoline, and missed work. Most applicants alrleady submit electronic copies, and for those who don’t, it’s a lot easier for a staffer to scan them once, than to have to make copies every time someone asks for them. And please don’t misrepresent or slander those who advocate for smart, low impact & sustainable development policies and practices as ‘anti-development’.
David, your passion for transparency would carry more weight if it weren’t routinely wielded like a cudgel. Let’s set the record straight: no one is against easier access to documents or better online availability—we all want an informed public. But there’s a difference between constructive advocacy and the kind of grandstanding that costs this town time, morale, and taxpayer money.
You cite Ridgefield’s practices—great. Let’s talk about that like adults. But instead, what we see is a steady stream of accusatory posts, legal challenges, and FOIA blitzes aimed less at solving problems and more at creating headlines. It’s not “slander” to point out that your approach often does more to divide and exhaust than to help.
I’ve been at the very meetings you claim are inaccessible or opaque. I’ve seen your group turn logistical hiccups into conspiracy theories. I’ve watched as staff—who already work overtime—are dragged into another fishing expedition while real civic needs are left hanging.
You’re not just pushing for access; you’re using the tools of open government to grind its gears to a halt. That’s not progress. That’s obstruction dressed up as advocacy. And the people paying for it—literally—are your neighbors.
Let’s stop pretending it’s just about uploading PDFs. The issue here is how we engage. We can have real conversations about modernization without constant accusations, FOIA skirmishes, and Facebook pile-ons. Until then, I’ll continue to call out tactics that undermine, not uplift, our town.