Date: Fri 13-Mar-1998
Date: Fri 13-Mar-1998
Publication: Bee
Author: STEVEB
Quick Words:
Council-FOI-Snyder
Full Text:
Council Criticized For "Private" Meetings
BY STEVE BIGHAM
Some members of the Legislative Council received a public chastising from Mike
Snyder last week for their alleged violation of the Freedom of Information
(FOI) laws.
Mr Snyder, a former member of the Board of Selectmen, claimed council members
violated the law when they agreed to meet in private with members of the
Library Board of Trustees to discuss the library's proposed budget.
Was he right or wrong? The answer appears subject to interpretation, but a
staff attorney for FOI in Hartford believes the council members may have been
in violation.
The council members met with the library board on separate occasions to avoid
ever having a quorum.
"It basically sounds like they were trying to conduct business while
circumventing the regulations," said Tracy Gardner, an FOI attorney. "It
sounds like a deliberate move to avoid public disclosure."
The FOI defines a meeting as "any communication by or to a quorum of
multi-member public agency, whether in person or by electronic equipment, to
discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision,
control, jurisdiction or advisory powers."
First Selectman Herb Rosenthal believes neither the council nor the library
board violated the law intentionally. However, he thinks the council should
make an effort to avoid such meetings in the future.
"It may not violate the letter of the law, but it certainly violates the
spirit of the law," he said. "The intent of the law is to have these
discussions in public."
Mr Snyder does not plan to file an FOI complaint, but hopes the council will
know better next time around.
"It was lobbying by the library board," Mr Snyder said. "For a member of the
library board to have a chance meeting with a council member in the
supermarket is one thing, but to hold little meetings like that, to me, it
just isn't right."
Council chairman Pierre Rochman has asked attorney Steve Wipperman to
determine whether or not there was a violation.
"There are mixed feelings as to whether or not it was violation," Mr Rochman
said. "I really don't feel anyone did anything intentionally."
